Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 12 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

VAT (Fuel)

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he used to determine the level of value added tax on fuel; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Following last week's vote, the level of value added tax on domestic fuel and power will remain at 8 per bent.

Mr. Thompson: Given the huge embarrassment experienced by the Chancellor last week on the 7.5 per cent. increase in VAT on domestic fuel, is he aware that the introduction of 8 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel was equally unpopular? Is he further aware that, despite the criterion set down for the annual mean temperature over the country as a whole, the temperature in the north of England and Scotland is well below that of the south, which makes the tax very unfair? As nothing can be done about the 8 per cent., will he reconsider the criteria that trigger the cold weather payments, in view of the difference in temperature between the north and Scotland and the south. And—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Thompson: Well, finally, is the proposed increase to 17.5 per cent. still the Chancellor's primary concern?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the topicality of his question, but I appreciate that the problem is caused by our procedures, which govern when he had to table it. The financial embarrassment caused by the defeat has been closed by the revenue that I announced last week. No doubt people will be able to make some objections about some of what we did last week, but the Budget judgment remains intact and we remain on course for recovery.
I am not an expert on climate so I cannot comment in detail on the differences between north and south, but it is not the case that every part of the north of England is colder than every part of the south of England. I come from the midlands so I am fairly neutral, but I believe that, although costs vary across the country, the burden of taxation is pretty fair. As the hon. Gentleman

acknowledged, the answer is the cold weather payment scheme, which was invented by this Government and had no precedent before we came into office. We acknowledge that there are periods of severe weather when some form of compensation is called for. In two Budgets I have raised that compensation from £6 a week two years ago to £8.5 a week from now on.

Mr. Kynoch: I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend left intact the increase in cold weather payments, which is of great benefit to the elderly and those on low incomes, and that he has left intact the £30 million for the home energy efficiency scheme. Will he ensure that the Opposition, who seem intent on scaremongering and frightening the most vulnerable in society, are made aware of the free phone number that such people can call for information and help?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To close this episode, let me say that, as a result of our package, the average pensioner will be fully compensated for the average VAT bill in forthcoming years. Pensioners were not being borne down on by our proposal and a small majority of pensioner households will now be overcompensated for the 8 per cent. that will remain. In fact, by its vote, the House has relieved the rest of the population of the feared burden of VAT on fuel. I appreciate my hon. Friend taking up the positive point about the home energy efficiency scheme. We doubled it last year and have now added a further £30 million. It has been a huge success and, as well as reduced fuel bills, brings to many elderly people the added comfort of having a properly insulated home. I trust that it will be backed enthusiastically by all parties.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the differential impact of VAT on living standards, not least those of British Gas showroom workers, who now stand to earn less in a year than their' chief executive earns in a week, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take the chance that I gave him before to condemn the 75 per cent. pay rise for the chief executive of British Gas and even, belatedly, to outline what action he proposes to deal with excesses that are both irresponsible and unfair, and an affront to decent standards in British industry?

Mr. Clarke: I do not want to talk about the affairs of individuals across the Floor of the House, but I have no doubt that Mr. Brown lives in a house whose fuel bills make him a major beneficiary of the effect of last week's vote on VAT. I should think that he was one of the big gainers from the hon. Gentleman's brave gesture when he voted on the Budget. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman shows ever-increasing enthusiasm for expressing views and striking attitudes towards the running of private-sector companies, especially in the energy sector. 'The background to all this is that British Gas has been a huge success since privatisation, and customers are benefiting from improved services and lower tariffs. It would be a regression to go back to the state of affairs that existed when Governments both of his party and—for a time, unfortunately—of mine, thought that somehow they could take over the supervision of the delivery of major public services such as gas.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have done more than any other to help the elderly and low-income groups with


energy bills, not only through the cold weather payments, which have already been mentioned, but because, under privatisation, the real cost of gas and electricity has fallen? Will he continue that trend by resisting any imposition of a carbon tax?

Mr. Clarke: It is certainly true that the effect of sticking at 8 per cent. VAT is that gas and electricity prices have fallen by 1 per cent., even allowing for VAT, compared with the rate of inflation over the past two years. It is clear that the regulation imposed on the utilities will ensure continued falls in the price of gas and electricity. We must resist the attempt by the Labour party to take the affairs of such industries back into Government hands. A carbon energy tax—an alternative favoured by the Liberal party usually and the Labour party often—would impose not only a tax on domestic fuel but extremely heavy costs on British industry, and would disadvantage us in world markets. I am glad to say that at the Essen summit President Delors acknowledged as much, saying that the Commission would continue to design the outlines of a carbon energy tax, but would accept that it was for individual member states to decide whether they wanted such a tax. We shall rescue this country from such a tax, whether the idea comes from Europe, the British Liberal party or the British Labour party.

Mr. Battle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how VAT on domestic fuel will impact on households at differing income levels.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how VAT on domestic fuel will impact on households at differing income levels.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Taking account of the generous compensation that they will be receiving, benefit recipients will be paying much less than those with higher incomes. For the majority of pensioners that compensation will more than match the VAT that they will be paying.

Mr. Battle: Is it not a fact that the poorest households spend 13 per cent. of their income on fuel, whereas richer households spend only 3 per cent. of theirs? Does the Chancellor know that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has estimated that, as a result of VAT at 8 per cent., the poorest fifth of the population will reduce their fuel consumption by 9 per cent., compared with an average of 6 per cent? The compensation package shortchanges the people who need it most, such as the elderly and the infirm. People on disability living allowance will get nothing. Those who pay the highest price can do the arithmetic; they will go cold this winter because of VAT on fuel, even at 8 per cent.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is misusing a statistic that makes the obvious point that people on lower incomes tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel, just as they do on food. Many of them also tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on tobacco and alcohol than other people do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That just happens to be the case.[Interruption.] Of course it does.
The Opposition are obscuring the fact that, in cash terms, we introduced VAT in order to give cash compensation to the poorest. As I have already said, and

as I restated in my reply, for the majority of pensioner households, the amount added to their pension will be greater than the amount that VAT adds to their bills. With the greatest respect—this is becoming an old campaign and I have accepted the vote of the House—I still become roused by this absurd claim that people were somehow going to die from cold and all the rest of it, when they were going to be compensated in respect of their bills. The people in the big houses will save the VAT.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the Chancellor not realise that, in the light of the statement that he has just made to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), he does not really understand the plight of old-age pensioners, the poorer families and the sick in relation to VAT? In addition, the Chancellor has been responsible for cuts in benefits.

Mr. Clarke: If VAT costs the average pensioner a certain amount, and if the compensation that we offer is equal to that amount, I cannot see how I can be accused of neglecting the interests of pensioners. The hon. Gentleman says that this is part of the fall in living standards, but fortunately I am very glad to say that the living standards of retired people have risen well ahead of inflation since the Government took office. Living standards have risen about 40 per cent. ahead of inflation in the 15 years that the Conservatives have been in power.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that pensioners in particular study his Budget statements with great care and they do not take a great deal of notice of the Opposition parties' scare stories? However, is he also aware that there is some anxiety about the position of VAT on fuel in 1996, when it is believed that the European Union will require an end to all zero rating? Can my right hon. and learned Friend put at rest the minds of pensioners, who are concerned about future VAT rates on fuel?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I am aware that there are fears of that kind and I can put them at rest. Until we have a new VAT regime agreed in Europe, the present regime continues. We have always safeguarded our right to determine which goods remain zero rated. That remains the case. As we enter discussions in Europe about a possible further regime for VAT, we will ensure that we retain the right to set zero rates according to our judgment. That is one of our main negotiating aims.
With regard to pensioners in general, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). They follow these issues with care. I am sure that many of them noticed that, when I was able to go back to indexing the tax allowances for the general population against inflation, I over-indexed the aged person's allowance for income tax. Therefore, the tax bill of pensioners who pay income tax was relieved by my Budget. The overall effect of the Budget is slightly to reduce the burden that we impose on pensioners for revenue purposes.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to resist the scare claims of Opposition Members which, as usual, are designed to frighten the most vulnerable in our society? Will he also continue to


give attention to providing funds and incentives for home insulation and energy conservation despite past and expected future falls in the price of gas and electricity?

Mr. Clarke: I undertake to do so. The good thing about the home energy efficiency scheme, to which we have already alluded, is that we have expanded it very rapidly indeed. We doubled it last year and the people responsible for the scheme have responded and have proved capable of spending that money. Sometimes one can move so fast that it becomes difficult for the administration to keep up speed and deliver the money in terms of homes insulated. One million homes have been insulated and the level at which we are now running the scheme will produce a significant difference to the comfort and fuel bills of many elderly and poor people.

Ms Armstrong: Given that many low-income families will receive no compensation for the increase in VAT on fuel, and given that we know that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider, why will not the Chancellor condemn the 75 per cent. pay increase for the head of British Gas? The Prime Minister condemned it; why will the Chancellor not do that?

Mr. Clarke: Carrying on about the pay of individuals does no earthly good to pensioners. It merely distracts public attention from the fact that the Opposition have no positive proposals to put forward on taxation or on public spending, or the relationship between the two. I have repeatedly made it clear that I deeply deplore, in any major company, pay increases that are not justified by performance. Shareholders should take an interest in remuneration when there is any reason to doubt that it is matched by performance. I strongly reject the idea that it is the business of Government to go back to the business of setting salaries in major companies, something that was a hallmark of an extremely unsuccessful period in running many businesses, including the public utilities.

Public Borrowing

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely effect on the economy of a continuation of public borrowing at current rates.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The Government have taken firm action to reduce public borrowing. That should ensure sound public finances and the strengthening of the UK's economic recovery.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the recent successes by Jetstream Aircraft of Prestwick in selling Jetstream 41s overseas? Does he consider that the reduction in our long-term borrowings will assist future exporters?

Mr. Aitken: I am indeed aware of the considerable successes in the export market of the Jetstream company in my hon. Friend's constituency. It recently sold aircraft to South Africa and to Korea, both of which are new markets for that company. It is part of the mounting success of Britain's exports, which are at the record level of a 14 per cent. increase this year.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What is the Government's policy on future borrowing? Does the right hon. Gentleman have a view on whether, on the upturn of the cycle, the

Government should eliminate borrowing, or is it his and the Chancellor's intention to ensure that Government debt continues to increase even when the cycle is on the upswing? Will he make a clear statement on the Government's plans for borrowing? Do they believe in a balanced Budget?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman should study the Red Book, where all those matters are set out in some detail. In general terms, it continues to be our policy to reduce public borrowing in accordance with the graphs and curves set out in the Red Book, and that will remain our policy.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that only by taking a tough approach to public spending has it been possible significantly to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and, at the same time, to achieve an impressive 4 per cent. economic growth? Does he also agree that that is in stark contrast to the Opposition, who urge more and more spending and do not have a clue how they would reduce the PSBR?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As usual, the silence from the Opposition on those subjects is absolutely deafening and embarrassing. They will not say at what level they intend to reduce public borrowing or whether they intend to reduce it at all. In more general terms, sound public finances are absolutely central to the economic recovery, which is going well, with growth rates of more that 4 per cent. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of our successful recovery.

Mr. Andrew Smith: While the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has the graphs and curves from the Red Book in mind, will he confirm that, on debt interest alone, the Government propose to spend £35 billion extra over the next five years, compared with what they spent over the past five years? Is the projection in the Red Book for 1996–97 of a PSBR of113 billion a firm target? If that is not a firm target, what is his target?

Mr. Aitken: All targets are intended targets, and we are aiming for them, so there is nothing different about that. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is at last taking a serious interest in reducing public debt. The cost to the taxpayer of gross debt interest payment is almost £1,000 a household. Therefore, at long last, after the embarrassing silences from the Opposition, we are glad to have a signal that they are interested in reducing public borrowing. That is a first for Labour.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the welcome reduction in borrowing will help to ensure that we continue to have one of the lowest absolute levels of borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product of any country in the developed world? However, at a time when private sector borrowing is falling, I urge my right hon. Friend to be very chary about further rises in interest rates.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is quite right to commend Her Majesty's Government for their good record on steadily reducing public borrowing, which has halved in two years and which is exemplary compared with that of many other nations. As he knows, Treasury Ministers do not comment on rises or falls in interest rates, but I have listened carefully to his advice.

Investment

Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the effect of his Budget on investment levels in the United Kingdom economy.

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact his Budget will have on investment levels in the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect his Budget will have on investment levels in the United Kingdom economy.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): The Budget reinforces our strategy of ensuring sound public finances and low inflation, providing a good climate for investment. We expect investment to grow strongly in the coming year, with whole economy investment increasing by 5¾ per cent. and business investment at nearly 11 per cent.

Mr. Miller: That strategy has resulted in Britain coming 22nd out of 24 countries in an OECD survey of investment as a function of gross domestic product, and it has resulted in a steady decline in manufacturing investment in plant and equipment since 1990. Will not that strategy continue to undermine Britain's manufacturing base?

Sir George Young: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can claim that 11 per cent. growth in business investment next year is in any way disadvantageous. What would damage investment in this country are the Labour party's proposals to help itself to substantial sums of money from industries which were nationalised—money that it would find only by cutting investment and infrastructure and thus creating unemployment. We will listen to no lectures about investment from the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Jones: The Minister talks about business investment, but surely he is aware that even the most optimistic forecasts do not predict that it will reach the level it was before the recession. Therefore, he will not be surprised to learn that at a recent meeting with the West Midlands Engineering Employers Federation I was told that, apart from a little help that will be provided to tiny businesses, the Chancellor's Budget will do absolutely nothing to secure the long-term sustained growth in business investment that is necessary if we are to reach the investment levels of our competitors to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred.
After 15 years of Tory Government, is the Minister not ashamed of that record? According to an answer from the Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a total abuse of Question Time. Both questions and answers have been extremely long, and it is totally unfair on those hon.

Members who have questions listed further down the Order Paper and who can reasonably expect to be called. I want brisk questions and answers.

Sir George Young: The hon. Lady is not correct. A recent Confederation of British Industry survey, published in October, showed that the balance of firms planning to spend more on plant and machinery is at its highest level since April 1989.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the Minister congratulate those in the north-east—notably those in my constituency of Hartlepool and those in the Northern Development Company—who have worked so hard to secure the recently announced investment by Samsung Electronics in Teeside? Does that not demonstrate a very powerful case for a close partnership between the private and public sectors, as well as the importance of effective regional policies and Government incentives for investment? Will the Minister therefore repudiate the Employment Secretary's demand that such essential industrial assistance be cut?

Sir George Young: Of course I pay tribute to those who have won the orders. One reason why the north-east has done so well is that the Government have consistently supported that area through development corporations, city challenge and enterprise zones, and our policies are now paying off.

Mr. Renton: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on what he has told us. What budgetary measures does he think need to be introduced in order to maintain—let alone increase—investment levels if serious suggestions were made by serious people that Britain should leave the European Union?

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is right. Many investors, particularly international companies, want to invest in a country that is at the heart of Europe, and that is a key part of our selling strategy. A healthy economy, sustainable recovery, low inflation and rising profitability are what matter, and we now have them.

Mr. Jenkin: Why does Britain have the most punitive rate of capital gains tax in the entire developed world? Would not it boost investment if we were to reduce or even abolish CGT? Japan has no CGT, and it works perfectly well.

Sir George Young: There will be opportunities as the Finance Bill goes through Committee to develop at length the subject of CGT. It is worth recording that 99 per cent. of taxpayers do not pay CGT, so one must put the problem in perspective.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not the 11 per cent. projected increase in business investment exceptionally high? Although the Labour party—for obvious reasons—does not want to acknowledge that fact, is it not irrefutable evidence of the confidence that the Government's policies have engendered in the economy?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. In the past few days, a decision has been taken by London Underground about the Northern line, and the go-ahead has been given to the Croydon tramlink and the midlands


metro. Investment decisions are now being taken, jobs are being created and we are making progress in modernising the infrastructure.

Mr. Darling: On Tuesday, the Chancellor said that the timing of interest rate rises depended on, among other things, political events. Who will decide the timing of interest rate changes as we approach the general election—the Governor, acting in the interests of the economy, or the Chancellor, acting in the interests of the Tory party?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman knows precisely what the regime is. Decisions are taken at the monthly meetings, and the Governor has flexibility on the timing.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the levels of investment by British Telecom, the gas industry and the water industry? Does he believe that the rise in their investment is due to the fact that they are now in the private sector and are not nationalised industries?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is exactly those successful investment programmes that the Opposition seek to damage with their proposal for a windfall tax, which I hope has now been abandoned.

Living Standards

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect which Budgets since 1992 have had on living standards.

Sir George Young: Household income after tax and inflation is expected to rise next year to be almost 50 per cent. higher per head than in 1979. Our policies of sound finance and low inflation have created the prospect of sustained growth and of further increases in living standards.

Mrs. Jackson: Do not the averages mask the differentials? Is it not true that since 1979 half the tax handouts from the Government—£16 billion—have gone to the top 10 per cent. of the population and that, since 1992, £2 billion has been taken from those in the bottom half of the household incomes table? Is the basic unfairness of that Tory tax policy an unfortunate mistake or part of a deliberate policy?

Sir George Young: What really matters is that the real incomes of vulnerable groups—pensioners, the unemployed and the low paid—have all gone up. The burdens of the 1993 and 1994 Budgets are spread fairly across all income groups.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that whenever Opposition Members quote statistics on the amount of tax that is being taken from the average householder, there is always an assumption that the living standards of that average person have gone up well ahead of the rate of inflation? Would not it be sensible for them to look at what sums people take home? Have not living standards risen year by year for the average householder?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. Tax is an important part of the picture, but it is only part of it. What matters is the total picture, which includes earnings.

As I said a few moments ago, real income per head has risen by nearly £50 per week since 1979. That is the figure that really matters.

Public Expenditure (Northern Ireland)

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he had with the Northern Ireland Office in drawing up his public expenditure allocation to Northern Ireland for the fiscal year 1995–96.

Mr. Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was fully involved in the decisions about future public expenditure in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, and that of the Minister, that the announcement regarding public expenditure in Northern Ireland was made on Monday, not to the House or to Members of Parliament who represent Northern Ireland but to the press? Notwithstanding that, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the advent of peace in Northern Ireland has created new public expenditure priorities. Expenditure on security is being reduced, increasing the need for further expenditure on other parts of the public sector and, in particular, on job creation. It is estimated that peace will mean the loss of more than 25,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, and that vacuum must be filled. Will the Minister assure me that the financial benefits gained from spending less on security will be used in the public sector on job creation and not clawed back into the Treasury? That money should be spent for the benefit of Northern Ireland to enhance its future chances.

Mr. Aitken: As today is the first anniversary of the Downing street declaration, I am glad to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming any proposals that will strengthen the prospects for peace, prosperity and investment in Northern Ireland. It may be premature to speak about a large peace dividend, because it is too early to lower the guard on security. I emphasise, however, that prospects for investment, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at yesterday's meeting of the Investment Forum, are excellent.
The Government have no intention of taking money away from Northern Ireland—far from it. As we made clear in the announcement at the Essen conference, we have shown our good will by ensuring that any new investment money from the European Union or from other sources will be considered in addition to the Government's planned spending growth and investment in Northern Ireland. The prospects therefore look good for a new era of better investment in Northern Ireland.

Unemployment

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the costs of unemployment.

Mr. Aitken: In 1993–94, the costs of benefits paid to the unemployed in Great Britain is estimated to have been £9.7 billion.

Mr. Skinner: The problem with that answer is that the Minister has not taken into account all the lost taxes and national insurance contributions, other benefits that are


paid to the unemployed and the cost of redundancy payments in many cases, which bring the cost of unemployment to a total to £9,000 a year for anyone unemployed. That is why another member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Education, went along to a Select Committee and used that very figure. On top of that, miners who have been thrown out of work and who receive money from the Department of Energy—there are more than 100,000 of them—are not included in the unemployment statistics. The truth is that if the Government got rid of mass unemployment in Britain, they could wipe out the public sector borrowing requirement for next year.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is always full of instant solutions and wrong figures; today is no exception. The figure he has quoted is wrong. Successive Governments have declined to make estimates of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has made because they require all sorts of arbitrary assumptions and guesses to be made about the potential earnings of unemployed people and their spending patterns. It is safer to say that the implied costs of an unemployed person are about £3,500. That is why the figure that I gave in my original answer stands.

Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the costs of unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) fell last month because the unemployment rate there fell by more than 2 per cent.? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the cost of unemployment in my constituency has fallen consistently since the general election? What lessons has he learnt from the overall unemployment figures throughout the country?

Mr. Aitken: Unemployment is falling all over the country at the extremely satisfactory rate of more than 1,000 a day. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may not be aware of the interesting phenomenon in his constituency known as the "Bolsover diamond"—that is not a reference to the hon. Gentleman when he is in one of his rougher moods but a £35 million investment project under the single regeneration budget, £5 million of which came from the Government, the rest being raised in partnership with the private sector. That project will create nearly 3,500 jobs and train more than 1,000 people. That is the kind of employment advantage that the Government are creating through their excellent policies and the sound Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.

Skills

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of skills in the United Kingdom relative to international competitors.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The competitiveness White Paper made it clear that, although the United Kingdom has world-class skills in some areas, further progress is needed in others. The Government have introduced major reforms to improve outputs from education and training.

Mr. Clapham: I am rather surprised by that answer because the Minister will be aware that a great deal more needs to be done. Yesterday, the Trade and Industry Select Committee visited Glasgow, where we spoke to

IBM, Stevensons and Hoover, who told us that they were having extreme difficulty in finding the skilled labour that they required. Britain obviously needs far more skilled labour if we are to compete with our main competitors. What resources will be made available, and over what period of time, to lift skills in Britain to the level of our major competitors?

Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on behalf of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, of which he is a member. This country lags behind some others in technical and intermediary skills, which is why considerable extra resources are being made available through the advanced and apprenticeship schemes, which should provide some 70,000 extra people with national vocational qualifications over the next five years.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that even the most skilled workers cannot compete and get jobs in a negative industrial environment where minimum wages and social chapter restrictions are the order of the day?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A minimum wage and social chapter would undoubtedly destroy jobs and diminish training budgets.

VAT (Zero-rated Goods)

Ms Hoey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the scope of VAT to goods which are currently zero-rated.

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

Ms Hoey: We shall have to wait and see on that. As a special Christmas gift to women, will the Minister consider zero rating something that is not a luxury but a necessity—sanitary towels and other sanitary apparel? Will he give the matter serious consideration because those items are a necessity and women should not have to pay VAT on them?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have no plans to reduce VAT on the items mentioned by the hon. Lady and we cannot introduce zero rates for reasons, of which she is aware, connected with rules under the European Union.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a question for written answer on the Order Paper for answer next week asking him to clarify the position with regard to zero-rating VAT on pleasure rides? Is he aware that in Cleethorpes people are concerned about whether VAT will be put on donkey rides on Cleethorpes beach? Will he clear up that matter, as those donkey rides are an important part of the local economy?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Public transport will continue to be zero rated. Unfortunately, beach donkeys do not constitute public transport, even in Cleethorpes, but at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. I am sure that they represent excellent value.

Living Standards

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on living standards.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Real household income per head has risen by an average of nearly £50 a week after tax and inflation since 1979.

Mrs. Roche: Will the Chancellor explain why, at the last general election, the Government said that they would raise the living standards of the British people yet now have the gall to expect the typical British family to find £800 a year to pay for the new taxes that he has introduced?

Mr. Clarke: What the hon. Lady calls a typical household is about 1 per cent. of households in the country. She is misusing statistics again. She will have noticed that next year we expect personal disposable incomes to rise by about 1.5 per cent. After taking account of tax and inflation, that is an average of about £5 a week. Those are the first fruits of our economic recovery and we are now set on course for a strong economic recovery, strong manufacturing base, falling unemployment and rising living standards for the people of this country, in line with what we promised at the last election and in marked contrast with the previous Labour Government's record.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the clear signs of the improvement in living standards in the United Kingdom is the substantial number of people today who hold shares in companies? Does that not perhaps alter slightly the statistic that 1 per cent. of the population pay capital gains tax?

Mr. Clarke: It does, indeed. Another of the achievements of the past 15 years is the fact that the Conservative attachment to the principle of popular capitalism and every man a shareholder has been taken a great deal further forward, and very many people now own shares in successful British companies. I agree with my hon. Friend that it puts the arguments about capital gains tax in context that such a comparatively small number of taxpayers in this country actually pay capital gains tax.

Mr. Salmond: Would the Chancellor like to take a cut in his pay of 16 per cent. this Christmas? Would he rather work in the British Gas boardroom, where one gets £500,000 a year, or in the showroom, where the £13,000 salaries are being cut by 16 per cent.? If the Chancellor will not do anything about the unacceptable face of privatisation, why does not he introduce a system of taxation that reduces the marginal tax on the poor, and ask people with their snouts in the trough to pay their fair share?

Mr. Clarke: Questions about the management of British Gas must be addressed to British Gas. The hon. Gentleman, like the Labour party, must resist the temptation to return to the days when parliamentary questions, ministerial decisions and political interference determined the commercial policy of institutions that provided the country with utilities. We now have a massive increase of investment in British Gas and falling

fuel prices. An extremely strong industry has developed, and I trust that its management will continue to manage it fairly and properly in the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Roche: Given today's news that British Gas retail staff, who earn an average of £13,000 a year, will be asked to take a pay cut while the chief executive will receive a pay rise of 75 per cent., does the Prime Minister share the opinion of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party that, under the present Government, the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest?

The Prime Minister: I am a little surprised that the hon. Lady should mention that matter, in the light of what her hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor had to say on the radio a couple of hours ago.

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hawkins: In the light of this week's welcome further fall in unemployment, has my right hon. Friend met a single business man who supports the Labour party's demand for a minimum wage, which would destroy so many jobs in constituencies such as mine in Blackpool?

The Prime Minister: I cannot be sure that there is none who would, but certainly the overwhelming opinion is to the contrary. Even the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has in the past used the expression that there would be some jobs "shakeout", or words to that effect. That means, of course, that people will lose their jobs. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that a minimum wage would have a potential jobs impact. He can hardly believe that it would be a favourable jobs impact. I think, therefore, that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench tend to agree that jobs would be lost by that policy.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, by next year, the chief executive of British Gas will earn in one week what his employees, who are now confronted with job cuts and pay cuts, earn in one year? Is it not time that he took a grip on those privatised utilities and put a stop to excesses that are offensive to the British sense of justice?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to decide whether he wishes to have a private sector with rigid Government controls over every aspect of it. in which case it is not a private sector, or to renationalise industries such as gas, in which case he should make his position entirely clear. He might also clear his lines with his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr.


Brown) because my answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) applies also to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Blair: Since these industries are regulated, why could they not be regulated to put a stop to those excesses? Is not the point one of efficiency as well as justice because, if we want a modern motivated work force, we can have it only on the basis of investment, partnership and fairness, not on the old Tory notion of greed at the top and insecurity for the rest?

The Prime Minister: A couple of hours ago the shadow Chancellor was asked:
Surely there is nothing you could do, could you, about wage rates within an industry? You are surely not going to start interfering with that again, are you?
To that, the hon. Gentleman said:
No, these are matters for negotiation between the unions and the employers.
They should sort their lines out themselves before they criticise us.

Mr. Blair: The issue is not the market conditions of British Gas but the contrast between the treatment of the chief executive and those ordinary staff who are facing pay cuts. I understand that the Cabinet has its own committee looking into these matters. If the Prime Minister has such a committee, why will he not accept the suggestion put forward from the Opposition Benches that where there are excessive pay increases at the top the regulator should act to stop them?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the regulator. He is being wholly inconsistent. One day he complains about the British Gas monopoly, the next day he complains when British Gas faces competition and cuts its cloth accordingly. In one sense he opposes monopoly, in another sense he opposes competition. The reality is that he just opposes the private sector. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is what he and his colleagues have done so often—find a grievance, whatever it is, and use that grievance for partisan interest in the interests of the Labour party.

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today is the anniversary of the Downing street declaration. I congratulate him on the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland towards a lasting peace and the announced inward investment and on the atmosphere that has improved so much in Northern Ireland, which he found in Portadown yesterday. Conservative Members believe that unless we get rid of the explosives and the firearms of the IRA, the UVF and the UFF, we will not be able to make the progress that we should.

The Prime Minister: I share that view. Firearms, explosives and detonators, whether held by the IRA or by the loyalist paramilitaries, need to be decommissioned. As I said yesterday, I am not concerned whether they are surrendered; I am concerned that they are

decommissioned and destroyed so that they can no longer be used to disrupt the democratic life of Northern Ireland. That is the important matter. That does have to be discussed and it does have to be acted upon during the preliminary discussions that are taking place at the moment. If progress is not made on that, not only, in my judgment, would the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland politics not sit down with those who retain those weapons, but nor should any British Government.

Mr. Ashdown: Given the damage that has been done by indecision and division over Bosnia in the past, will the Prime Minister tell us what his response will be to the French proposal to be put to NATO on Monday to secure Sarajevo airport and to open a route to the sea in order to reinforce the UN's humanitarian operations and to make more secure the position of our troops there in the future?

The Prime Minister: Of course, we consider carefully anything that would secure the position of our troops and the right hon. Gentleman should know better than to suggest that we would do otherwise. I wish that he would not repeatedly undersell and undermine what is done there by British troops, United Nations troops and the Government. He has done nothing but grandstand on this issue from the commencement of the matter. If he really understood a little more about it, he might say a little less about it.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employees should be encouraged to take stakes in the companies that they work for? Does not he think it odd that the Labour party attacks share options, particularly bearing in mind the extent to which its leader and various of his "luvvie" friends seem to have benefited from them?

The Prime Minister: I certainly think that it is right to extend share ownership as widely as possible. In the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic extension of share ownership. That has entrenched the private sector and private enterprise. It has done a great deal for the individual security of people owning shares. We shall certainly continue those policies. It would be welcome to have a cross-party consensus on it.

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Will he join me in congratulating the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, and may I thank him personally for the great contribution and excellent launch of the Investment Forum drive in Belfast this week? He and, I hope, all hon. Members will pray that it bears immediate and urgent fruit. Having launched the Investment Forum, and having begun demilitarisation talks with the republican and loyalist paramilitaries, does he agree that the most urgent and pressing need in Northern Ireland is the recommencement of political dialogue, which must perforce await completion of the framework document? Will he assure the House today that, with the creation of the new Government in the Republic of Ireland under the new Taoiseach, John Bruton, the Government will act urgently to complete the


framework document so that the two Governments and the political parties can negotiate a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the IDB, officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the investment conference held yesterday. No one who attended the conference has any doubt that it was a tremendous success not only in the new investments that were announced yesterday, but in the number of new investments that may arise as a result of the conference. The atmosphere was quite astonishing, as everyone who attended will know.
On the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, clearly it is desirable to recontinue the political dialogue as soon as possible. I have written already to the new Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, to say that I look forward to meeting him as soon as possible. I am confident that the new Irish Government will wish to sustain together the work that we have done over Northern Ireland. We wish to recommence discussions on the framework document and, I hope, conclude it as speedily as possible. But I would rather take a little longer over the document and get it right than deal with it too speedily and perhaps not have it right.

Mr. Dunn: What advice will the Prime Minister offer to the people of Islington who are entitled to say that, if local education is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, it is not good enough for them?

The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is not only the Leader of the Opposition who has not found the education system satisfactory in Islington, although the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head so perhaps he does find it satisfactory after all. We need the highest quality of education in Islington not just for the right hon. Gentleman, of course, but for every Islington resident whose children attend schools there.

"Maltese Double Cross"

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is the outcome of the investigation, referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 29 November, of the

scrutiny of the film "Maltese Double Cross" by those involved in the investigation; and who were those involved to whom he referred.

The Prime Minister: The Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police are still considering the contents of the film.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a matter of record that on 19 September 1989 the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson—in good faith, quite certainly—offered the British relatives of the victims of Lockerbie a public inquiry on the condition that it was agreed by his colleagues? Which colleague vetoed that, and why did she do it?

The Prime Minister: My understanding of what I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a little different from that implied by him. I am advised that in 1990 Lord Parkinson undertook to consider with colleagues the case for a confidential inquiry. When, subsequently, a decision was taken to hold the fatal accident inquiry, the case for a second inquiry fell away. I am advised that that was explained and accepted at the time by the relatives.

Engagements

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the London to Crianlarich and Fort William and other sleeper trains are to be axed? That is no scare story. It signals the death knell of many vital rural services in Scotland and is due entirely to the Prime Minister's chaotic and damaging privatisation scheme.

The Prime Minister: Unless the hon. Lady is talking about a different service, I understand that sleeper services from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness will be safeguarded for the first time. If she has other detailed questions about other services, I suggest that she addresses them to the Secretaries of State for Transport or for Scotland.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Motions on parliamentary procedure.
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Debates on the Adjournment. As the House will realise, that is marginally better than my forecast last week.
The business for the first week back after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Jobseekers Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 JANUARY—Motion relating to the Committee of Selection.
Motion on the Cleveland (Structural Change) Order.
Motions on the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order and the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order.
THURSDAY 12 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries Etc.) Bill.
Debate on child care facilities for the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 13 JANUARY—Debate on the role of the citizens charter in improving public services on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. The House will have noticed that the recess is to start a day earlier than anticipated, presumably because the Prime Minister does not want another Question Time before Christmas—[Interruption] Or perhaps it is because of the introduction of the winner of the Dudley, West by-election some time next week.
I thank the Leader of the House for finding time for a debate on child care facilities in the House of Commons. That move will be welcomed by Members and staff alike.
Will the Leader of the House look at the exchanges yesterday when the Secretary of State for Wales, ostensibly making a statement, spoke for 20 minutes and produced a so-called "Budget for Wales"? Will he take steps to ensure that time for statements is not abused in that way? Will the Leader of the House give us an indication of how we can make progress towards ensuring that future requests for meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff are taken seriously and that the Secretary of State for Wales does not wriggle out of appearing before that Committee by making statements such as the one he made yesterday?
Finally, in view of the widespread and genuine public concern about the future of the blood transfusion service, regarding the sale of blood abroad and the back-door privatisation of this essential service, will the Leader of the House ensure that an urgent statement is made on that vital issue?

Mr. Newton: May I take the first part of the hon. Lady's question first? The House should know, in the light of what she said, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, indirectly, I, received a request from the

office of the Leader of the Opposition that the House should rise on Tuesday. I hope that she will agree that my right hon. Friend deserves an apology from her for the comments that she made.
If I may return to quieter territory, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for referring to the debate on child care. I, of course, note her comments about the Welsh statement and those about the Welsh Grand Committee and will bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. May I add to that comment, Madam Speaker, because you know that the matter has been on my mind. I would not presume to suggest that you, Madam Speaker, have had it on your mind as well, but it is a possibility. Considering the length of all three local government statements this year, although they followed tradition, before next year it may be right to consider whether there is some way in which to abbreviate the statements and make more written material available to the House. I shall examine that, but, obviously, at this stage it has to be without commitment.
Let me make two things absolutely clear about the blood transfusion service. There is no question of turning the National Blood Authority into a commercial organisation, still less of privatising it. It does not sell blood abroad, nor does it collect any more blood than is needed to meet the needs of patients in this country.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I understand that the Finance Bill is due to be published on 4 January. Can my right hon. Friend give us any indication of when it may be debated on Second Reading?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm that we hope to publish it early in the new year. I cannot at this moment give a date for Second Reading. As my hon. Friend will know, I have not included it in the week's business that I have just announced, but I expect that it will occur fairly shortly after that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Leader of the House has announced two debates on procedures of the House, one next week and the other on the balance of party representation on Committees to be debated when we come back, does he accept that all the structures of the House should reflect the balance of political allegiance in the House as a constitutional principle? Does he accept that if the Government do not have a majority, the Government should not have a majority on Committees either; that it is Parliament and not Government who should decide things here?
Given that there is so much controversy and anger, especially at the end of this Session, can we establish an objective place from which the facts that the Government and other parties use can be produced, so that no claims can be made that there is not a widening of the gap between rich and poor, for example, when self-evidently that is the truth?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, no doubt for his own reasons, wishes to draw me into some wide generalisations. For the moment, I shall simply confirm that there is to be a debate and confirm also that the House contains a clear majority of Members elected as Conservatives.

Sir Peter Emery: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on tabling motions for the Jopling report to be carried through? During that debate, will he listen


closely to the views that may be expressed by hon. Members, because there may be some additions or alterations in the use of Members' time which the House may like, which would probably fit in with my right hon. Friend's motions and to which it would be necessary for him to pay particular attention?

Mr. Newton: I hope that my right hon. Friend, to whom I listen as much as to anyone, will accept that I always listen to views put to me about matters affecting the House and, indeed, other matters. It sounds as if he has some ingenious ideas up his sleeve and I look forward to hearing them with interest.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Leader of the House join right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on the publication today of his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? The Leader of the House knows that the conventional wisdom was that a Government Bill dealing with discrimination against disabled people would be tabled for Second Reading on 11 January; will he take us into his confidence and tell us what has happened and when we can expect that Bill's publication?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly take the right hon. Gentleman into my confidence to the fullest possible extent. We shall publish the Bill and debate it as soon as possible, but I do not expect that to be before Christmas.

Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will know, under the present Government the area of green belt has doubled since 1979. May we have an early debate on the antics of Sheffield city council, which insists on building on green-belt areas such as Limb lane in Dore? The council wants further to erode the green-belt area that the Government have increased. [Interruption.]

Mr. Newton: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)—who, no doubt, lives not too far from the area in question—indicating his assent to the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick). I note that concern, and hope that it will also be noted by Sheffield city council.

Mr. David Winnick: As the festive season is now upon us—although one would not imagine it, given the way in which the Prime Minister has just behaved—could a statement be made before the House rises for the recess? It would give tremendous joy to most people in the country if it were announced that a general election would be held early in the new year. Is it not time that we put this dying Government out of their misery?

Mr. Newton: I am more than willing to join in the festive spirit, but the notion of my giving the hon. Gentleman a general election as a Christmas present seems more far fetched than usual.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Valuable debates have taken place throughout the country during the International Year of the Family, as well as the hearings and report of the informal Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), in the process of which issues of great importance to families have been defined in the best possible way, and public appreciation of them has been heightened. In view of that, and bearing in mind the Government's

important initiatives to promote the well-being of the family, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the family early in the new year?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake off the cuff to provide time for such a debate, but a number of the issues involved may be the subject of various debates in which my hon. Friend may wish to participate. I am thinking, for instance, of an attempt to ease the way for people with family responsibilities who wish to engage in full-time work by improving the arrangements for family credit, and other such measures.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I continue the festive theme by asking the Leader of the House to arrange for an induction course in Scottish geography to be given to the Prime Minister as one of his Christmas presents, in view of his appalling response to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that arrangements are made for a report to be made on the meeting of the Fisheries Council on 19 and 20 December? We debated the subject yesterday, but it is important for those of us who represent fishing constituencies to know exactly what has been decided.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will report as early as possible in whatever way is appropriate to ensure that the hon. Lady and others are well informed in the wake of last night's debate. As for the geographical point, I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) a very full reply.

Mr. Toby Jessel: In view of the current difficulties experienced by the Irish Republic in forming a Government, will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on whether we should take that as a warning never to have anything to do with proportional representation?

Mr. Newton: I can think of a number of reasons for being sceptical—to put it mildly—about proportional representation, but, even so, I do not know that I would wish to be drawn into the current internal affairs of our neighbours.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Before the recess, will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement about how on earth his Department submitted an official report to the United Nations stating that there were no mountains in Scotland? During the Christmas recess, will the Leader of the House take the Prime Minister on a train journey up the west highland line so that they can see how out of touch the Department of the Environment is, so that the Leader of the House might just be able to explain to the Prime Minister where exactly Fort William is and so that they can both enjoy one of the most scenic railway lines in the world which, unfortunately, is threatened because of the Government's doctrinaire privatisation plans, which should be scrapped forthwith?

Mr. Newton: On the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I regret to say that I have no plans to take my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on an extended tour of the United Kingdom during the


Christmas recess. As for his question about the Department of the Environment, the literal answer is that I am not prepared to answer it without notice.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the heroism, skill and professionalism of the Royal Air Force crews who fly Hercules aircraft? Those aircraft are often older than some of the people who crew them and need to be replaced urgently. Does he accept that the answer lies not in ordering paper aeroplanes, which could not be available for at least eight or 10 years, but in providing replacements now so that morale and professionalism in the Royal Air Force can be maintained at their customary level?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that, like me, the House will join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all the airmen who fly the Hercules and other aeroplanes. As for the underlying thrust of his question, I can tell him that good progress is being made towards a decision and I hope that it will be possible to give an indication of it before too long.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on parliamentary questions? I would not like to put the right hon. Gentleman on the spot, but can he give me a potted interpretation of what "disproportionate cost" means?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would, of course, like nothing better than to put me on the spot, but it is kind of him to say that he would not and I shall take his comment in the Christmas spirit. As for disproportionate cost, I believe that £200 or £300 is the current figure beyond which it is open to Ministers to decline to answer. That figure is reviewed from time to time, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations to me about it, I shall, as always when dealing with him, look at them with extreme care.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Given my right hon. Friend's answer about the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and the possible delay, will he consider an urgent debate on the economy, not least so that we can celebrate our domestic control of our money supply and our low inflation and high levels of growth, but, most of all, because I am concerned that the Leader of the Opposition will be a long time coming to the Dispatch Box to explain Labour's policies on the economy and I would hate to think of him missing an opportunity some time in the next few five months for us to examine them?

Mr. Newton: I would expect the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to take place before I could find Government time for a debate on the economy, but I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments. He might like to consider the fact that, subject to the Chair, some of the observations that he wishes to make would be in order during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Ms Angela Eagle: During last night's Adjournment debate, which was granted to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), we discussed the National Blood Authority and the possible closure of the Liverpool transfusion centre. In response to

a question from me, the Under-Secretary of State said that he thought that there would be no question of blood being bought and sold, but in today's newspapers—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Lady a little guidance? She should be asking the Leader of the House for a debate or a statement. She should begin with that rather than giving us the whole story and she could then tell us what the problem is and what she wants discussed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: She is doing all right.

Madam Speaker: No, she is not doing all right. I want to see that the hon. Lady does even better.

Ms Eagle: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was trying to save the best until last, but following your advice I shall mention it first. This morning there has been a contradiction of advice that we were given in the House last night, so I am trying to establish whether, in the light of those contradictory statements, we can have a debate so as to establish the true facts.

Mr. Newton: If we had to have a debate every time newspapers printed stories at variance with the position as stated—and it has been stated not only by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health last night, but by myself only a few moments ago in response to a question from the Opposition Benches—we should have many such debates. As I have already said, the National Blood Authority does not sell blood abroad, nor does it collect more blood than is necessary to meet the needs of patients in this country.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that tomorrow's debate on the popular national lottery will take place on a motion for the Adjournment, and will therefore not facilitate amending the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, if necessary, to ensure the anonymity of winners whatever the press says or does not say? Will my right hon. Friend therefore arrange for an early debate on amending the Act to that end?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to say that a debate on a motion for the Adjournment does not provide an opportunity for amending legislation. I understand that any information released by Camelot in the current case was approved by the winner, but, given the allegations that have been made, I welcome, as no doubt my hon. Friend does, the director general's decision to hold an inquiry.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time in the new year for a debate on the Department of Trade and Industry grant system? In Merseyside, and especially in St. Helens, we find an absence of grant notwithstanding our assisted area status, simply because the Government will not match European money pound for pound. Even when money is available it does not seem to benefit the people of St. Helens, in that companies seeking to start up or relocate there do not receive the necessary assistance because of a series of arbitrary rules that do not appear to apply in Wales or elsewhere.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on that matter, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that Department of Trade and Industry Ministers are due to answer questions on Wednesday 11 January.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Given the questions asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition about top people's pay, may we have a debate next week on the pay of top people in the public sector? In such a debate we could point out that the cost to public funds of the pay of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has increased by no less than 95.6 per cent., to a top person's pay of £62,000.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made his point, but for my part I must observe that it is only a matter of weeks since I undertook a debate on an order on ministerial and other salaries. I do not look to arrange another in the near future.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have an urgent debate on the health of the Prime Minister? If he is going to get out of his pram as he did just now in response to a question from the shadow Leader of the House, he will do himself a mischief. The Opposition would not want that to happen, because we want to do him the mischief ourselves.

Mr. Newton: I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend shows every sign of being and continuing to be in vigorous health. However, if someone is subjected, as he was, to the suggestion that the reason for the business that I announced was his desire not to answer questions on Tuesday, against the background that I described, it is perhaps not surprising that he is cross.

Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding the opportunity to catch your eye during the Adjournment debate on Tuesday, Madam Speaker, would it not have been better for the House to sit until Wednesday? We do not need the Leader of the Opposition to be here. Some of us are concerned about jobs in the railway carriage construction industry, in places such as the ABB factory in York, which is threatened with closure because of a lack of orders—

Sir Irvine Patnick: And in Derby.

Mr. Greenway: And in Derby, as my hon. Friend says. This matter greatly concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House and those who are faced with redundancy because of the threatened closure will find it hard to accept that the Leader of the Opposition wants an extra day's Christmas holiday while we cannot debate the future of the railway carriage works.

Mr. Newton: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion. He may have an opportunity to raise that matter on Monday if he so wishes, quite apart from the Christmas Adjournment debate, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here on Monday to answer questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, after the Prime Minister got all worked up and angry earlier about finishing on Tuesday because it was alleged that he wanted to dodge Question Time and witnessing the Labour victor from Dudley, investigations have been carried out and it is on the record that no such request was made by the Leader of the Opposition in

respect of not being here on Tuesday? Rather the contrary is the case: he wanted to be here to question the Prime Minister and to welcome the Labour victor from Dudley.

Mr. Newton: I obviously note what the hon. Gentleman says and others may wish to make observations on that. However, my clear understanding from my right hon. Friend is that an approach was made from the office of the Leader of the Opposition of the kind that I have described.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Can a guarantee be given that there will be a reasonable period between the publication of the Government's Bill on disabled people and its Second Reading? There will be two Bills before the House, one of which, my private Member's Bill, has already been published. There are considerations about the two Bills rubbing up against each other which need to be resolved. It would be unfortunate if the Government introduced their measure and then bounced us straight into a debate. The problems that might arise in respect of two similar Bills being before the House might not be able to be thought through properly and resolved. My Bill is certainly a superior measure to anything that the Government will do.

Mr. Newton: I need simply say that it will be my aim, as it normally would be in respect of any Bill other than an emergency one, to observe the usual conventions in these matters.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 203:
[That this House notes the resignation of Graham Leach, the journalist previously based in Brussels for BBC News and Current Affairs; and would welcome information as to the reasons for the resignation and whether they have any impact on the purse of the licence payer.]
May we have an urgent debate to discuss the diversion of licence-payers' money from BBC programming to the paying of bogus expenses claims, in at least one case amounting to over six figures? May we discuss the rigorous—or otherwise—accounting and auditing procedures within the BBC regarding expenses claims in the news and current affairs department? At the same time, perhaps we could discuss the abrupt resignation from the BBC of Mr. Graham Leach.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that that is a matter between the BBC and Mr. Leach. It is not a matter on which I can appropriately comment at the Dispatch Box. However, I am sure that others will have noted my hon. Friend's comments and will consider them.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Following the point that was very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the right of an individual, who is not a public figure, to privacy in a free society? The House has debated that matter before and the Government have given commitments that, if self-regulation in the newspaper industry was not seen to be working, they would favour


legislation. Clearly, it is seen not to be working. May we have a debate so that the House can express its views on that subject?

Mr. Newton: I do not wish to add this afternoon to what I have said about the director general's decision to hold an inquiry. Any decisions about how to carry the outcome of such an inquiry forward, should that be necessary, must obviously await the outcome of it.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about the terrible and tragic flooding that has taken place all over Scotland? Will he do that with great urgency as our people are in dire straits as a result of the lack of Government action in our constituencies?

Mr. Newton: Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for properly raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. He will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for industry and local government, was able to make a statement on the problem to the Scottish Grand Committee. That indicates some of the merits of the new Scottish procedures that were put in place last summer, following much hard work by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and by Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Clive Soley: May I press the Leader of the House again on the need for a debate on the family, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)? The right hon. Gentleman will know of the enormous effort that has been made by individuals and organisations during the International Year of the Family. There will be great disappointment throughout the country if the House and the Government do not take a lead by allowing a debate on an issue which touches every person in this country.

Mr. Newton: Of course, I note the second representation on that matter. It reinforces my willingness at least to consider the possibility of such a debate, but manifestly I cannot make a commitment this afternoon.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in thanking you, Madam Speaker, for arranging time during tonight's Consolidated Fund debate to raise again the mutual defence agreement between Britain and America. Does the Leader of the House accept that, on 13 December, the shadow Foreign Secretary formally objected to the ratification of that agreement and its extension without full parliamentary debate? Will he guarantee that such a debate will take place in Government time, and that the extension will not be signed without the formal agreement of the House?

Mr. Newton: May I make a couple of points clear? First, in accordance with the Ponsonby rule, the 1994 amendment to the 1958 agreement was laid before Parliament on 21 October, and it remained there for the required 21 sitting days. Secondly, the Ponsonby rule does not require a debate to be held before ratification, nor, if a debate is called, does it require ratification to be delayed until the debate has been held. Nevertheless, my right hon.

Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I will consider carefully the contents of the Consolidated Fund debate. Indeed, we share the gratitude of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) to you, Madam Speaker, for having made such a debate possible.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of sub-post offices? Given that 200 sub-post offices close every year, will be use the opportunity of such a debate to reassure my constituents that their sub-post office in Dulwich village, which has repeatedly been threatened with closure, is secure?

Mr. Newton: There are two points. First, as sub-post offices are private businesses, their fortunes depend on a variety of factors. No Government of whatever colour could guarantee that no sub-post office would ever close for whatever reason. Secondly, it is generally accepted that, whatever the dispute about some other aspects of the proposals of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for the Post Office, the proposals for Post Office Counters Ltd. and, in association with that, a wider range of business for post offices, including sub-post offices, were widely and rightly held significantly to improve the prospects of sub-post offices.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House examine two parliamentary answers when considering the desirability of a debate on the costs of parliamentary questions? The first is one that I asked of Baroness Thatcher on the 10th anniversary of her reign, when I invited her to list the failures of her Government. The answer was disappointingly brief and probably cost about 5p. The former hon. Member for Pembroke asked her to list her successes. The answer occupied 47 columns of Hansard and cost £3,500. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that "disproportionate cost" means, "We do not want to answer that awkward question"?

Mr. Newton: No, I cannot confirm that. Of course, the Government are always anxious to be as helpful to the House as they possibly can.

Mr. John Gunnell: Bearing in mind the fact that the director general of the Prison Service has reported an alarming number of deaths and serious injuries in the newly privatised Doncaster prison, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to give time for a debate on the privatisation of the prison service, so that we can consider whether it is sensible to have a regime in which prisoners have far more experience of prison than the staff?

Mr. Newton: As on a number of other subjects, I cannot promise a debate. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is due to answer questions on Thursday 12 January and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could make that request to him also.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time to allow the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement about the future of Neath and Port Talbot hospital? The Leader of the House may recall that in July this year the Secretary of State announced that the new hospital would go ahead and would be up and running by 1998–99.
It has now emerged—Madam Speaker, this partly concerns you also—in the small print of the "Budget statement" that was announced by the Secretary of State,


which has not yet been placed in the Library but which has been confirmed to the local press, that the hospital will go ahead only if private finance is made available on a matching basis with the public sector contribution which the Secretary of State promised all along. That is absolutely disgraceful and I believe that it is an insult to proceedings in the House. Surely the Secretary of State should be hauled before the House to make an urgent statement.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) began the exchanges this afternoon by suggesting in at least one of her questions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was in the Chamber rather too much and for too long yesterday, I am reluctant— even disregarding the hon. Gentleman's language— to seek to "haul" him here again. However, I will certainly draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision not to hold an urgent debate on the national blood transfusion service? Contrary to his belief, I have received confirmation in a parliamentary reply that certain blood products are sold not just in Europe, but worldwide.
In an attempt to increase its level of blood stocks, the National Blood Authority sent out a letter on 16 November asking transfusion centres to increase their levels to 30,000 units, and each centre was granted 10,000 to cover advertising costs.
Unfortunately, the public's loss of confidence in the blood authority has resulted in a decrease in blood stocks to the extent that yesterday they fell to 18,000 units—which has been described as a crisis level. On Tuesday, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Prime Minister said that some aspects of the national health service are best catered for in the private sector. I believe that there is an urgent need for a debate on the National Blood Authority.

Mr. Newton: I will not repeat the points that I made earlier, but I add that occasionally collecting blood stocks sufficient to meet domestic needs—which is the point that I emphasised and which is the authority's principal

purpose—leads to a surplus of blood products which can be sold abroad. I am advised that the alternative would be to burn the surplus, which is to hardly anyone's advantage. I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman' comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the exchanges earlier, will the Leader of the House accept my word that, regardless of what he has been told by the Prime Minister or anyone else, my inquiries confirm that the Leader of the Opposition made no request to cancel the business on Tuesday next week? If that is the reason why the Leader of the House proposed that the House should rise on Tuesday rather than Wednesday, now that the reason does not hold up is it his intention to restore Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesday and will he withdraw his earlier statement?

Mr. Newton: The last thing that I want to do—especially at this time—is to raise the level of acrimony in the House. It is clear that there was a misunderstanding on the account of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), because it is manifest that the impression created in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's office was that something approaching a request had been made. I honestly do not think that we can carry that point further across the Floor of the House today.
I am not disputing the good faith of the hon. Lady. Equally, I hope that she will accept that what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said was also in good faith. If there has been a misunderstanding, we should perhaps clear it up in other ways. Meanwhile, 1 am certainly not planning to announce an immediate change to the business that has already been announced for next week.

Madam Speaker: May I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday 20 December, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 am on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Monday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to refer to early-day motion 284 in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and I have given the hon. Gentleman notice of my intention to do so.
A week ago The Cornishman newspaper published a letter, which the editor admitted to me he knew to be a spoof, from an organisation purporting to be the Penwith Conservative research group. No such group exists. The letter was damaging to the Conservative party when taken at face value, and it made outrageous statements.
It came to my notice that the hon. Member for Devonport intended to table the early-day motion, and it duly appeared on the Order Paper. Before the hon. Gentleman did so, I met him on two occasions and put him in the picture. I told him that the letter was a spoof, that the organisation did not exist, that the writer of the letter was not a Conservative and that his outrageous views could not be attributed in any way to the Conservative party which, of course, was the impression left with the many people who rang my office. I gave the hon. Gentleman a press release issued by my association agent which made the position clear, and I also alerted the Clerks to the situation.
Subsequently, the hon. Member for Devonport saw fit to table the early-day motion which gives credence to that scandalous suggestion, despite my having told him the background to the situation. Could you say something, Madam Speaker, about an hon. Member acting in such a way in using the facilities afforded to all of us through the Order Paper? As the hon. Gentleman is in his place—I am grateful to him at least for that—will you now give him an opportunity to withdraw the early-day motion and the scandalous points which he is seeking to make?

Mr. David Jamieson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled this early-day motion as a matter of good faith to give the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) an opportunity to refute the letter that had been put in his local newspaper. It is significant to note that the hon. Gentleman did not refute the contents of the letter, but just tried to deny that the person who wrote it was a former member of the Conservative party.
Would it be in order, Madam Speaker, for you to give an opportunity to the hon. Member for St. Ives to correct his early-motion 289, in which he has misspelt the name of a village in his own constituency?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have had enough of these exchanges. The House knows that hon. Members take responsibility for the texts of their own early-day motions—

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Just a minute. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is always on his feet asking for a point of order before I have finished talking.
The fact that the hon. Member for St. Ives tabled early-day motion 289 has put the matter in context.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just had a series of requests to the Leader of the House for various debates—many interesting debates and many less interesting ones, but plenty of suggestions for business. If it turns out, when inquiries are made, that there was no request from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister not to have normal business on Tuesday, and given that the Leader of the House cited that request as the reason why the House would rise somewhat earlier than expected—despite all the business that we have suggested—can you make it clear that you would place no impediment on the Leader of the House coming back to the House with another business statement? That would ensure that we can have Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday.

Madam Speaker: The business of the House is not a matter for the Speaker, but for the Leader of the House in conjunction with the usual channels.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House say in answer to my question that normal conventions would be followed on the introduction of the Government Bill on rights for people with disabilities. I wonder whether you can inform the House of the normal conventions for Parliament—I know that you cannot rule on the normal conventions of the Government.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a wry smile on his face because he knows that that is a hypothetical issue at the moment.

BILL PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (COSTS OF INQUIRIES ETC.)

Mr. Secretary Gummer, supported by Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Redwood, Mr. Jonathan Aitken and Sir Paul Beresford, presented a Bill to make provision authorising or requiring certain local authorities with functions under the enactments relating to Town and Country Planning to make to, or to persons appointed by, certain Ministers of the Crown, or to persons appointed by those authorities, payments in respect of the administrative cost of, or otherwise connected with, certain local inquiries or other hearings, examinations in public, or the consideration of certain objections, under those enactments; to validate the imposition by such Ministers on those authorities of requirements to make such payments, and the making by those authorities of such payments, whether before or after the passing of this Act; to make provision with respect to the remuneration and allowances payable to persons appointed to hold such local inquiries or other proceedings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1994–95

Class XIII, Vote 4

Child Support Agency

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1993–94, on The Operation of the Child Support Act: Proposals for Change (House of Commons Paper No. 470), and the Social Security Departmental Report on the Government's Expenditure Plans 1994–95 to 1996–97 (Cm 2513.)]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £45,825,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services, including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.—[Mr. Burt.]

Mr. Frank Field: The debate on the supplementary estimates gives the House an opportunity to discuss the current report on the Child Support Agency laid before the House by the Select Committee on Social Security. I should like to make some general observations about the CSA and then to discuss some of the specific proposals that we made in our report, which we issued recently.
The nature of the debate allows me to begin by thanking the members of staff of the Select Committee for the work that they do. Given that our proceedings are now televised, it may surprise many taxpayers to know that Select Committees run their own establishments on a tight reign. Our own Select Committee has just four staff to cover all its functions. Although we may not live up to the expectations of American committees, we certainly give extremely good value to taxpayers in the way in which we attempt to monitor what is happening in government. I am grateful for the opportunity to put my thanks to those staff on the record.
The first and most important general observation about the CSA is that the whole atmosphere of the debate on its future has changed in the few months since we previously debated it. At one time, I seriously thought that the agency would collapse; that the difficulties of establishing it and the weight of its work load were such that before the end of this year the Secretary of State would have to come before the House, draw stumps and say that the Government were beginning again. I no longer believe that that is so. Although the Select Committee has some criticisms to make, to which I hope the Government will respond constructively, anyone who believes that the agency will collapse is either misleading himself or misleading others.
The nature of the debate now is how we reform the CSA to make it more effective and to fulfil the goals that the House thought it was voting for when it established the agency, rather than a mere moonshine debate about what will happen when the agency is replaced. It will not collapse, so the politics surrounding the CSA relate to

how we should reform it. Certain reforms have been made and I hope that the House is clear about the significance of the change that it has made to that area of policy.
Since the welfare state was established, with the first reforms that Lloyd George put on the statute book in this Chamber, we have been about redrawing the boundaries of duties between state and individuals. Each of those changes has redrawn the boundary in favour of collective action as against individual responsibility. The importance of the Child Support Agency is that, in that most sensitive of areas, we have for the first time redrawn that boundary restoring duties to individuals and withdrawing state support. If any hon. Members thought that that would be a popular move, they were clearly foolish to hold such a view. Given that we have decided to redraw the boundary, it is doubly important that we listen carefully to the criticisms that have been made about the running of the agency and that Governments respond sensitively, quickly and regularly to concerns that hon. Members express on behalf of their constituents.
The most serious concern that we should all have is the fact that those of us who voted the passing of that measure, with widespread support, made it retrospective. The normal rules of the House have been hostile to passing retrospective legislation and that was not seriously considered when we debated the measure. Although we deplored the number of fathers—generally speaking—who had deserted their families and left taxpayers to pick up the bill, for a considerable period there was very little activity by the Treasury to reduce the increasing number of families who were deserted and whose household bills were met by taxpayers.
Over the past 20 or so years, but particularly the past 10 years, we have witnessed fathers disappearing from the scene and taxpayers taking on the responsibility of surrogate parents. This measure was intended to draw a line and, we hoped, to prevent that trend from continuing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I follow what my hon. Friend says, but am concerned that in my constituency the agency is failing to do what he wants. The agency is placing in most difficulty people who have been conscientiously paying, while it seems incapable of getting a grip on those who have washed their hands of all their responsibility and disappeared. I accept the fact that the courts have failed to do anything about those people, but so has the agency. The agency is therefore causing a massive upset to people who were meeting their responsibilities in the past and is failing to do the job that I and many others wanted it to do: to get a grip on those who were genuinely dodging their responsibilities.

Mr. Field: I hoped that the agency would get a grip on everybody, not just on one group or another. If parliamentary answers are to be believed—I see no reason why they should not be—the position has changed of late, given the groups of absent parents that the agency is now targeting. If I remember the answer correctly, some 70 per cent. of those now being contacted are parents who previously had not paid their contributions.
While the House must be aware of the value of representing single-Member seats and holding surgeries in those seats, which teaches us a great deal, it must also recognise that a selective group of people comes to see us. People do not come to our surgeries to tell us that everything is going well—thank goodness. Our lives


would be made impossible. By the very nature of such surgeries, people come to complain. No one has come to my surgery to say, "This is a wretched agency. I dumped my wife and disappeared. Thanks to you lot in the House of Commons, I have now been not only chased but traced and am being presented with bills." I do not expect people to come to my surgery and say that, although it is clear from the figures that people are being traced and money is being collected.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) makes is valuable, in that, if we were starting again, obviously we would not have started with those parents—not always, but generally, fathers—who were doing their level best to meet their commitments to their first families. They read about all the parents who were presented in an unfavourable light in the media and somehow felt that they were guilty by association and then, to add insult to injury, they were the ones who were on the learning curve of the agency as it tried to set up a new operation from scratch.
The balance has changed, but by the nature of our surgeries, we do not expect people to come to them and say, "I have been a heel for several years and the agency has stopped that." That does not excuse some of the behaviour that affected some of our constituents who played the game, who felt strongly about their commitments to their first families, who have never thought of themselves as absent parents in that sense, and who felt that they were being tried, not only by the agency, but by the media.

Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman, having said that about his advice centres, may be surprised if I thank him for doing something right. He and the Committee deserve the praise of the House. We have managed—and I am a big enough fellow to say it—to hide behind him in some respects. We have been able to tell our constituents that there was constructive debate, and that it was being listened to on the Conservative Benches. I shall hold an advice centre tomorrow, where I am sure that the administration of the Child Support Act 1991, not its politics, will be discussed in great detail by people who attend. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has put the politics behind him and is now considering, as are hon. Members on both sides of the House, the complicated matter of administration. I thank him very much.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. However, before I finish, I may mention a few strains of criticism about the nature of our report and about what happened to some of the recommendations in it. I am sure that, on that subject, the hon. Gentleman will be with me and perhaps against some of his Conservative colleagues.
Given the nature of the agency, given what it was trying to do in redrawing the boundary of responsibility between the state and the individual, given that it was a complete innovation and given that it was trying to obtain a more adequate contribution to first families from second families, our debate obviously centres on how those second families—and especially the fathers in those second families—have fared. Indeed, most of the recommendations that we made, and most of the

recommendations that were voted down by the Conservative majority on our Committee, were in favour of the absent father.
I do not want the debate to pass without recording on the Floor of the House that the group that is often left out of our debates is that of the mother and the children. To listen to some of our contributions, one would think that they did not exist. Although it is true that some women have behaved badly to their husbands or previous husbands or partners, who are very much the injured parties, the overall statistics demonstrate what one mother in my constituency said to me: "We feel that we have been dumped by our husbands. We had no wish to be on benefit—that is an existence that we have had to endure. Although we can understand you, as a member of the Committee, making proposals for change that ensure the effective running of the agency, we sometimes feel that we are left out of the entire debate." That mother described to me the experience of being the dumped mother in the arrangement. I hope that that thought will not be lost. I shall return to that theme later.
Hon. Members will know, from the part of the report that was agreed unanimously, that there is a raft of proposals that we hope that the Government will consider seriously, but at the end of the report there are other proposals, which are more basic in their approach to reforming the agency. I wish to discuss those proposals at the end of the report, but first I make one comment about my reported remarks about the new head of the agency.
I felt that the Secretary of State was getting away—if I may say so—with murder, always appointing a woman to run the agency. Many fathers used that person as the lightning conductor for their anger about the agency. That anger should be directed at the Secretary of State and at us—the people who passed the legislation—rather than all that anger, criticism, hatred and so on being directed at the agency.
My comments were clearly unfair to the new head of the agency, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions. I have rarely been so struck by a public official's ability to use common sense and elevate it to an intellectual level in discussing policy. That is a model which I hope we shall see reflected elsewhere in the civil service. After making her acquaintance, I am pleased to note that there are two people in the agency who could well take hold of the most senior position.
I come now to the reforms in the report that did not gain the approval of the majority of my colleagues. Again, I underline that the House must exercise its judgment. At one time it seemed that we might be debating the report against the background of a crisis arising from whether the agency could survive. We all know that, as Dr. Johnson said, to be hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully. If the Secretary of State thought that the agency would collapse, the agenda for reform would be much wider than it is today.
I make a different plea, not in an attempt to stampede people into reform, but for us to consider whether we have made the right judgment about how the agency should operate. The 41 proposals are all worth while, but they are not major reforms. We need to strike a new balance in how the agency will operate and we need to do that in three ways.
First, it is difficult to claim that, in the immediate future, the agency has the needs of children central to its operation. We all know why the agency is in existence. It


is an attempt to limit the cost that taxpayers are at present meeting on behalf of absent parents. As income support is being paid, why on earth, logically, should any money go to the first family? But as so often in political activity, logic is not the key thing in determining what we should do.
One of the ingredients that we lack for the success of the reform is a few million cheer leaders out there in the country. If the Government could accept the proposal for a disregard, we would have some important recruiting sergeants out there actively supporting the agency. There is clearly a mass of voters out there—millions of them—who support the agency unreformed. I would hope that they would want it to be reformed in the radical way that we are debating today, but we need some active supporters, which we do not have at present.
The disregard would not only recruit such supporters but play an important part in lessening the attempts that some absent parents are planning to frustrate the agency's operation by coming to an unwritten agreement with the first partner or wife and saying, "If you say that I am threatening to beat you up, I will slip you £10 or £20, you will be better off, you will still be getting your income support and I shall certainly be better off because I will be paying less."
If the penalties in the Act for those whose story in such circumstances is not believed—those penalties should clearly operate in such circumstances—were double-banked with a disregard, it would be difficult for individuals to try to put that pressure on their ex-wives or partners. The disregard should be seen not only in terms of winning supporters out there in the country, but as an effective way of preventing the increase in the number of those—generally speaking, fathers—who are trying to get their ex-wives or partners to say that it is unsafe for them to disclose the name, let alone the address of the father of their children.
Secondly, the House must accept that there is no right of appeal in relation to this executive agency. Is there any other body that makes decisions, let alone decisions as important as those taken by the agency, to which individuals have no right of independent appeal? I do not know of one. Of course, any appeal system would have to be carefully thought out and the basis on which appeals could be made must be carefully defined, otherwise large numbers of people would use an appeal system to try to wreck the CSA. An appeal system is an important matter of principle.
It is immensely important that individuals who feel so aggrieved that they cannot accept the agency's decision can appear before a group of their peers, eyeball to eyeball, and argue their case. That happens in our court system. We all know that sometimes we win in the courts and sometimes we lose, but we at least know that we have been able to put our case personally. This is an important and sensitive issue in people's lives and one cannot expect to run a service only by post or by telephone, however efficient the post or telephone system is. There needs to be that personal right of appeal.
The third reform, to which I attach the most importance, was not supported by a majority of Committee members. It involves having a new simple tax-take formula. The formula is important. Hon. Members who pass legislation should be able to understand it. I know that one Committee member understands how the formula works. Committee members

had the advantage of a tutorial from the Department for a couple of hours. When it was over, it appeared that we all understood the formula, until we were each invited to explain the simple examples that we had been given. We could not do it. That was not because Committee members lack intelligence—far from it. If we cannot understand the formula, how can we expect people out there to understand it?
It seems a extraordinary dereliction of duty for a party that believes in incentives not to understand the importance of individuals knowing what the effects on their maintenance payments will be of getting a new job or new qualification, working overtime and so on. The formula needs to be understandable to Members of Parliament, let alone our constituents. It needs to take into account—this is the more substantive point—the retrospective nature of the agency that has been established.
We may all agree that we should never have reached the position where large numbers of families gained no maintenance support, but the Government allowed that to happen. We all know how word spreads through the grapevine from this place. People believed that it was all right to begin a second family and they did not expect to make any major contribution to their first family. In those circumstances, large numbers of individuals began a second family.
Having happily established a second family, those people now find that the Child Support Agency that we established is retrospective. Natural justice demands that the group of people to which we apply the legislation retrospectively should pay a lower contribution than people operating in the world who know not only that there is a CSA but that the CSA is working, will stay and will become more effective.
I underline the point that I believe that we are debating reform of the agency rather than its collapse or abolition. Neither of the two major parties is interested in taking this piece of legislation off the statute book. However, the fact that the Secretary of State is not likely to find egg on his face from having to announce the agency's imminent collapse does not mean that we should not look carefully at the necessary reforms. It requires basic structural reform if we are to do justice to our individual constituents. I do not believe that we are doing that currently and, however useful the majority recommendations of the report may be, I do not believe that they achieve that either. Some of the recommendations that were voted down by the majority go some way towards doing that.
From this debate we need to send out a message to a large number of people who are incredibly angry at the way in which the agency operates and what it has done to their lives. We must let them know that, although we are committed to the agency, we are sensitive to what they say and will try to draw lessons from it. Fiddling about with minor reforms on the edges of the agency does little justice to the social revolution that we began when passing the Act. We were redrawing the line between the role of the state and the responsibilities of the individual. For the first time in 90 years, we have drawn back the line towards the individual. In those circumstances it is crucial that we listen carefully to what our constituents say is still wrong with the agency and that we act on what they say.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The Christmas spirit seems to be breaking out. I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), particularly when he said that he thought that our lives would become impossible, with people coming to tell us that things were going well. I take that as a fulsome compliment on the way in which the Government are running the country.
I join the hon. Gentleman in complimenting the staff of the Select Committee on Social Security on the help that they provide and, in the spirit of Christmas, I compliment the hon. Member for Birkenhead on the way in which he conducts himself as the Committee's Chairman. He has long experience and, having come to the Committee relatively recently, I feel that I benefit from that and from the fine way in which he conducts proceedings.
The hon. Gentleman was a little disingenuous in his criticisms of some of the items that do not appear in the full report. I listened carefully to what he said about maintenance disregard but I did not hear him provide a figure that he felt would be appropriate. He knows that substantial costs are involved. For example, he knows that a disregard of £15, which was one of the figures considered during the Committee's work, would cost anything up to £500 million. A £10 disregard could cost anything up to £350 million, depending on the take-up.
There are other disadvantages, because a disregard could be considered a disincentive to people wanting to go back to work. It could also be considered as unfair to parents who stay together, who would not receive the disregard if they were dependent on income support. Parents with care who were not able to have maintenance paid would be at a disadvantage compared to those who could. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that introduces another element of unfairness. There is no easy answer.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The recommendation for a disregard, which I also opposed as a member of the Committee, fails to acknowledge the proper role of family credit. As maintenance is received by a parent with care, not all the benefit that he or she may be receiving is taken away. The family credit system leaves them better off than they would have been. If the parent with care moves into part-time employment, the maintenance being received is not taken away like other benefits or the disregard would be.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend is right. Family credit is one of the best ways of helping people back into work. The parent with care can receive all the benefits not only of an additional income but of the social contact that can arise from going back to work.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead was let off the hook by the Committee. He was on record as saying that our formula should be changed to that which applies in Australia and New Zealand. The more evidence we received about the way in which the formula works, or rather does not work, in Australia and New Zealand, the more he realised that adopting that method would be a mistake. In fact, our report made the right

recommendations and the hon. Member for Birkenhead realised that the Australian and New Zealand methods were not the most appropriate.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend recall that as we looked at the Australian child support system we realised that it was still being questioned some six years after its establishment? We found that one of the principal questions was whether Australia could adopt a more complex formula along the British lines rather than its own simple formula.

Mr. Thurnham: If the Committee report was lacking in anything, perhaps it was sufficient comments about exactly what was happening in Australia. A Select Committee in Australia had reported on the difficulties. Mr. David Butler, the assistant commissioner for the Australian child support agency, said that the agency has been operating for six years and that
meeting all expectations is proving most difficult.
Mr. Frank Bosch, the director of child support in New Zealand, said:
Persuading people that parents should pay for their own children is a slow process.

Mr. John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a previous interim report from the Select Committee made the point that has been made several times by the Australians: that they cannot understand why we went for retrospection, which is the fundamental problem and the one that is causing the greatest difficulty? That problem was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Mr. Thurnham: I was coming to that. That was the other point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, although his view on that contradicted his opening remarks, in which he said that he wanted to stress the importance of the mother with care—it is usually the mother—and the importance of looking after those children. If we do not apply the system retrospectively, we will leave all those mothers with children out of the reckoning. We would have to say, "I am sorry, we cannot help you because we have decided not to look at it retrospectively."
There has always been a retrospective element. The courts have always had the power to look at current circumstances. If the father's circumstances are improving—it is usually the father—it is only right that there should be greater payments to help with the children. I do not think that we can say glibly that we can forget about retrospection. In any case, the scheme has been in operation in Australia for more than six years and there are considerable difficulties. Just saying that we will not bother with retrospective cases will not make life any easier.

Mr. Spellar: rose—

Mr. Thurnham: We have already had an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I must press on.

Mr. Alan Duncan: In past settlements was there not, by and large, a division of assets rather than a provision for maintenance in the future? When one understands the distinction between the division of stocks and the provision for future flows of money for the maintenance of children, one realises that the old arrangements under the courts were usually


deficient. None the less, the Committee has recommended in its report that some consideration should be given to the retrospective element of past settlements.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. We look forward to the Government's response in the latter half of January.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Birkenhead did not refer to one of the other items left out of the Committee's report. He may recall that he used his casting vote to rule out an amendment that I had tabled, which suggested that the Government might look more closely into the benefits that could be gained from contracting out. Those who have the report will find the details on page 31. We had an equal vote and the Chairman used his casting vote. I was sorry about that because I would have liked to have seen that appear properly in the report. I hope that the Committee will have time to look into contracting out. It was rightly pointed out that it had not had time to take more evidence on how contracting out should be applied more fully.
I shall direct my remarks a little more to the contracting out of the activities of the CSA and to the way in which the scheme would work. The private sector could have been used much more. The fact that the CSA was a new operation was no reason for not considering contracting out its services. I am sure that had the agency's services been contracted out, it would have worked better because firms that undertook to work for the agency, or perhaps directly for the Department of Social Security, would have been very careful about how they did it. They would not have landed themselves with the difficulties with which the Child Support Agency landed itself. Although Ros Hepplewhite has paid the price for those difficulties, they should not have occurred in the first place. I am rather sorry that we are meeting this evening to vote an extra £30 million pounds for the Child Support Agency because, had it been run more efficiently in the first place, I am sure that that money would not have been needed.
We have much experience of the benefits gained from contracting out by local authorities and by central Government. There is evidence that savings achieved in central Government by contracting out may amount to more than 20 per cent. and there is a great deal of evidence about savings in local authorities. The Audit Commission has achieved savings averaging 7 per cent., and in some cases higher. Savings range from those in refuse collection of 12 per cent., to those in building cleaning of 20 per cent. and so on through other local authority activities, saving many hundreds of millions of pounds. More than 40 local authorities are now reckoned to be setting a good example—Berkshire, Croydon, Brent and Wandsworth to mention a few. Indeed, the other day my own local authority in Bolton was able to save £250,000 per annum solely by outsourcing its computer services.
Those are examples of the savings that can be made and many firms can achieve them. At one time, the number of such firms was limited but, with the market building up, companies such as Touche Ross, and through it CSL, provide services. The American firm, EDS, has signed a £1 billion contract with the Inland Revenue to provide many of its computing services. The Cadbury-Schweppes firm IT Net, a French company P Sec, Anderson Consulting and IBM, ICL and many other companies now provide services.
I am sure that private firms of solicitors could play a part in the work of the Child Support Agency. I understand that some 160,000 people are employed in solicitors' firms. The workload of 5,000 civil servants—and it is rapidly expanding to 6,000 plus—in the Child Support Agency could be taken over by private solicitors' firms and perhaps co-ordinated by one of the companies that I have mentioned.
I was able to enjoy a meeting with the Secretary of State to let him know exactly how strongly I felt about contracting out. It was an opportunity for me to meet Ann Chant who, of course, was previously employed in the Contributions Agency. I am not exactly sure of the track record of the various people involved with the DSS. The DSS has perhaps been a little less successful than other Government Departments in contracting out. I do not know why that should be or whether there is some resistance in the Department to contracting out. Instinctively, I feel that the Government should contract out at every available opportunity. Indeed, there are examples of successful contracting out in the DSS, such as the Information Technology Services Agency, under which savings have been made. I do not see why the DSS cannot place greater emphasis on contracting out.
Other Departments have set remarkably good examples. The Ministry of Defence has made a 47 per cent. improvement in the time spent overhauling Challenger main battle tanks by outsourcing that work, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made savings of 34 per cent. from market testing the work of the intervention board. It is a question not only of reducing costs but of improving quality. I am sure that the two can work hand in hand. There must be plenty of opportunities in the DSS to open its work to competition and I am disturbed that it appears to have done much less compared with other Government Departments.
The Child Support Agency could gain more than any other agency from working in partnership with the private sector. It does not seem to be right to resort to old-style solutions of recruiting hundreds and thousands more civil servants for the task when those already employed have failed to do it so abysmally. Those civil servants were recruited at a substantially higher cost than they would have incurred if they were working in the private sector. If the CSA's work is put out to the private sector at a later date, heavy redundancy costs will be incurred in trying to replace civil servants with people who are on less attractive remunerative packages.
When the Committee considered other areas of the DSS, such as tackling benefit fraud, it was told—at an earlier stage of its work before I joined the Committee—that there was difficulty in tackling it sufficiently well because of a lack of civil servants to do the work. There does not seem to be any lack of civil servants to do the work of the CSA, so why were they not available to work at the benefit fraud office? All sorts of excuses were made to explain why the work of the benefit fraud office should not be outsourced.
I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Birkenhead did not comment on those issues. We all look forward to the Government's response to the Select Committee report and perhaps an opportunity for the Select Committee to look into matters further, including, no doubt, outsourcing in the DSS. I was pleased to hear during my meeting with the Secretary of State that there was every possibility of certain work being outsourced,


such as the collection of debts. I should like to stress that I wish to monitor the progress made by the Secretary of State in outsourcing that work at least.

Mr. David Chidgey: The recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on Social Security are welcome, but there is a belief that they do not go far enough, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said. More needs to be done to address what people see as a lack of balance in the operation of the Child Support Act 1991. Recognition in the report that the performance targets should be based on operational factors of the agency and not on Treasury demands is a major step forward, especially as hon. Members will know that in 1993–94, only some 6 per cent. of those who received maintenance awards were not on benefit. Because of the policy of back-to-back withdrawal of benefit on receipt of maintenance, the CSA is being seen by many as not so much a Child Support Agency as a Chancellor support agency, which is clearly not what was intended.
The report highlights the need for the CSA to meet performance targets for customer service. That is vital. We need to establish performance targets to construct minimum acceptable periods of delay in response to people's queries. We need to set targets for customer satisfaction, and, most important of all, targets must be set for the management of agency resources. I agree entirely with those comments in the report, especially as recent revelations have shown that in 86 per cent. of the cases handled by the CSA, it has either miscalculated the maintenance liability or misinterpreted the legal application of the Act. That is an appalling record for whatever reason and no organisation should continue on that basis.
There must be a major restructuring programme for the CSA so that it can start to deliver an acceptable level of service. I am sure that many hon. Members will know from their advice centres of the effect of the current inefficiency on their constituents. We have already heard in the debate about the sort of problems with which constituents are faced. Let us lay that out. Attempts to clarify CSA demands are often met with engaged telephone lines or recorded messages. For those on low incomes who do not have access to their own telephone and have to use public payphones, making such phone calls is a costly and difficult burden. Letters to the agency meet inordinately long delays before they receive a reply and sometimes they receive no reply at all.
Because of inadequate liaison between the maintenance assessment and the debt collecting sections, parents receive differing and often contradictory figures and demands. To make matters worse, the CSA does not store historic computer-generated detailed assessment letters; only the latest assessments are kept on the computer files. That makes it almost impossible for a parent to pursue a query or to challenge a decision while an assessment is being developed.
In my discussions with CSA staff—I am sure that many other hon. Members have engaged in similar discussions—I have been given to understand that when the agency was established it was assumed that staff would be able to assess maintenance payments, and collect them from non-custodial parents, purely by means

of paper communication. Naturally, the first reaction of a parent faced with a large and often unexpected assessment is to want to question and to verify it. It is beyond belief that a state agency should be expected to demand major slices of citizens' income—deducted at source if necessary—without providing a facility for those citizens to meet the staff or at least talk to them on the telephone. If the CSA wants to improve its performance, it must restructure its organisation to allow parents to discuss, query and in some cases challenge decisions in person. The Select Committee missed an opportunity in that regard.
Many of the changes that the report recommends are no more than trifling. If more is not done, the Act will have difficulty surviving in its present form. For example, the report fails to address the pressures placed on non-custodial parents to give up work because of the financial burden of maintenance payments. The refusal to consider travel-to-work costs is one of the factors that force many fathers to give up work and live on benefits. No one welcomes that development, but I hear of it from my constituents week after week. Those costs must be allowed: if a person cannot work, that person cannot pay maintenance for his or her children.
The Select Committee's recommended concession is no more than an exercise in pedantry. The costs of a car will not be allowed if the car is to be used privately as well. Again, if a non-custodial parent can travel to work only by car, because—as is the case in so many parts of the country—the public transport system is inadequate, that parent will need to buy a car, and such a purchase will invariably be made by means of a loan. That loan should be recognised in the maintenance assessment.
In many instances, divorcing fathers have taken out loans and mortgages to provide funds as part of a settlement. They have a legal obligation to pay their debts.

Mr. Duncan: Recommendation (xx) in the Select Committee report is simple and explicit. It states:
We recommend that travel to work costs are included in the calculation of exempt income.
Where the hon. Gentleman gets his notions about which costs may or may not be included is beyond me.

Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information, but I am content with the accuracy of the information that I possess. It is not acceptable for such obligations to be ignored; legally incurred and entirely necessary expenses such as mortgages need to be considered at the outset when the maintenance level is devised. That does not happen at present.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chidgey: No. I have given way already, and we are short of time.
The report makes no recommendations about disregarding any part of a CSA maintenance settlement against loss of income support. Instead, it suggests that income support should be made up to those whose maintenance is held up for any reason if it was reduced after the initial maintenance award.
Although that is welcome, it does not go far enough. It means that the poorest children will continue to be hit by the pound-for-pound rule. Their parents gain nothing from maintenance awards, and their non-custodial parents are


those least likely to be able to afford to keep up visits, pay for holidays and so on, having paid maintenance awards which, as we know, go straight to the Treasury.
In many instances, as was verified by a recent report from the five main children's charities, those children could be worse off. Their fathers will no longer be able to afford the informal financial help—clothing, presents and outings—from which they previously benefited. Women on income support should be able to keep the first £15 of a maintenance award under the Act—as they are in the case of family credit or disability working allowance—so that they would be better off co-operating with the CSA.
As has already been said, that incentive to co-operate would reduce the application of the 20 per cent. benefit penalty for women who refuse to name the fathers of their children. The refusal to change that part of the Act will benefit only the Treasury, while increasing hardship for children.
Those who negotiated a clean-break settlement are hardest hit. Fathers who gave up their houses at the time of separation as part of the settlement and took out a mortgage on a new home are now being asked to start paying additional maintenance. Inevitably, that is hitting second marriages hard. Some second spouses are being forced to contribute part of their income to first spouses, even when the first spouse enjoys a significantly higher standard of living.
The agency's action in overriding those court settlements is having a devastating effect on children. When otherwise stabilised relationships deteriorate because of financial pressures, the children find themselves at the centre of post-divorce acrimony. Recognition of clean-break settlements is an absolute necessity for any Government who are seriously committed to children's welfare.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead that a major fault ignored in the report is the lack of an appeals process. When a parent does manage to contact the CSA to complain about what he or she considers to be an unreasonable assessment, and once an appeal comes to be heard—a process that takes an average of six months—the chances of a fair hearing are still minimal, because the agency continues to act as both judge and jury. It is absurd that an agency such as the CSA, which in the event is answerable only to the Secretary of State, can overturn court orders with which all parties agree and comply. That is why an independent appeals procedure is so urgently required for cases in which severe hardship is clearly being suffered.
In short, the Act needs to be fundamentally overhauled, not tinkered with by a Select Committee that is eager to avoid the U-turn chaos that was described earlier. Clean-break settlements need to be recognised, accountability in the CSA needs to be improved and an independent appeals procedure is required. The Government cannot assume that all-party support for the Act will continue indefinitely: I think that they know that unless some action is taken to deal with the criticisms that have been made of the agency and the Act that it was created to uphold, they may find that support beginning to slip away.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: In some 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I do not think that I have ever before ventured into a debate on social affairs. I hope that my hon. Friends and members of the Select Committee will forgive me if I am wrong about some of the technicalities. If perchance I make a recommendation that is already included in the long list of recommendations, I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that as support for their views.
Let me make a serious point. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will know, we have limited time in which to debate Select Committee reports. In a way, I am happy to speak as someone who is not a member of his Committee: as it is often all too easy to have a debate on the Floor of the House that has already taken place upstairs in the Select Committee. We have not yet received the Government's reply to the Committee's report, and although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will seek to enlighten us as far as is possible, he will be somewhat constrained from making the Government's position clear until the more formal answer has been delivered. None the less, as we are having this debate and as I have dealt with more than the average number of cases, I feel obliged to speak.
I had the misfortune to be divorced some years ago, and I can only say that I know of no more traumatic personal experience. I would not wish on my worst enemy the misery of an unwanted divorce. Some people claim that there is such a thing as an amicable separation but that is rubbish or, at least, I do not believe that it happens very often.
Furthermore, no two divorces are quite the same. It is not a question only of the personalities involved and why two people are splitting up but of their wealth, jobs, circumstances and children. Despite that, and with the best intention—seeking to find irresponsible fathers who have disappeared—we have created a monstrous bureaucracy which pours misery on misery and the many unfortunate people who have already gone through the mental, physical and financial trauma of divorce now have to deal with this ghastly organisation as well. As a supporter of the Government, I have never been so ashamed as when I have had to defend the CSA and what it has got up to in the past two years.
My immediate reaction is that the assessment formula is wrong and unfair. Until, with the wisdom of experience and other countries and the two inquiries by the Select Committee, a more reasonable and equitable and less complex formula can be devised, there will be no substantive improvement in the management or operations of the CSA or its handling of cases.
No benefit will accrue to the children of a first family and/or the children of a second family if, as a result of the CSA's assessment, both families are left with a sum of money only marginally above the income support limit, bearing in mind the fact that the income support limit is far less than the money on which many of the people who come to my surgery are living. Of course, such people are not unwilling to pay; they have been to court and agreed a settlement and are open to a revision of that settlement. They feel bitter and unjustly treated.
The Government claim that the assessment should leave the non-custodial parent and the new family, if any, with approximately 70 per cent. of net income after the


payment of maintenance. That is not only wholly inaccurate in the case of nearly all my constituents but, because several essential non-elective expenses are disallowed, the reality is wholly different. Some people have even received assessments that leave them with negative income while many others are left with income only slightly above the income support limit.
Any new assessment formula must take into consideration the size and nature of clean-break settlements, something that the Select Committee recognised. It must be possible to overcome the difficulties; courts have been doing so for years. I know that there are legal problems, but they must be sorted out. A new assessment formula must also take into account the voluntary and informal agreements which have been willingly entered into to pour oil on troubled waters and to deal with matters amicably.
Allowable expenses must be extended to allow a number of non-elective expenses to be verified. Council tax payments, heat, electricity and water bills and travel-to-work expenses are easily verifiable. The costs involved in travelling to be with one's children is a crucial expense. One of my constituents is a service man who has been posted hundreds of miles away from his children. He is allowed to see them but cannot afford to do so. Such travel costs are not allowed in the calculation although they should be and would be, at least by anyone who has a heart.
Private pensions should be protected. Periodic overtime is a source of constant aggravation—why should it be included and used as a reason to raise the assessment? An incentive to improve one's financial situation must be allowed. In many cases, overtime constitutes the only way in which the non-custodial parent and his second family can survive economically. It seems fair that children should be maintained on the basis of a standard, regular income but it does not seem fair that maintenance should be an ever-floating item and that any extra money immediately increases maintenance payments. By comparison, many items of essential expenditure are allowed under legal aid so there is a perfectly good precedent.
The financial position of the new partner of a custodial parent is not taken into account. When my office made inquiries about that, it was told that the new partner of a custodial parent has no legal or financial responsibility for the children of the parent whom he or she is marrying. That statement has been included in several ministerial responses to my constituents' complaints.
Conversely, the new partner of a non-custodial parent is automatically liable for 25 per cent. of the household expenses. Letters from Ministers and the CSA have informed my constituents that the new partner's mandatory 25 per cent. contribution to the running of the household may result in the non-custodial parent contributing more in maintenance. Although some recent ministerial letters state that the income of the new partner of the non-custodial parent must be considered—it may result in a lowering of maintenance payments—the inequity remains. Let us keep it simple: when determining the right to, or responsibility for, maintenance we should either take both or neither new partners' income into account.
The CSA assessment must include identical allowances for natural children, stepchildren and the children of second families. Anything less will continue to cause significant psychological and emotional harm to all of the families involved. It strikes me as strange that, despite having such a high grade civil service, we have managed to include in the legislation—through the orders attached to the original Act—so many draconian and irrationally inhumane provisions.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have the advantage of not having been a member of the Select Committee and I do not want to get involved in detail, but it seems to me that there were three fundamental things wrong with the original legislation. The element of retrospection was and is wrong; the overriding of court settlements was and is wrong; and one needs a double first in mathematics to understand the formula. Does my hon. Friend think that we need a fundamental reappraisal not only of the work of the agency but of the legislation itself? I do not see any other way out.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: As I said in my opening remarks, I do not claim to be an expert so I cannot answer my hon. Friend, but I am sure that his remarks will have been noted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) sought to excuse to some extent the CSA's bureaucratic, mechanical performance, but there can be no excuse. In all my 25 years in Parliament, I have never known a Government agency perform so badly, incompetently and outrageously unfeelingly. Many of its staff are inexperienced at working in the highly emotionally charged atmosphere that the CSA has created. They complain of abusive treatment by non-custodial parents, but how would they be inclined to respond if, after hearing nothing from the agency for months and months, they received notice, with a threat of court action attached, that they were immediately responsible for paying arrears which, in some cases, could be as high as £3,000 or £4,000?
From the outset, the CSA adopted an adversarial style with all non-custodial parents and has treated them as though they were guilty of trying to avoid maintenance. The constituents who have written to me were paying maintenance all along, years before the CSA became involved. Other flaws in administration have included breach of confidentiality in matters relating to the non-custodial parent; the use of threatening language in correspondence; anonymous correspondence; and the staff's refusal to identify themselves on the telephone or the purpose of the call when initial contact was first made with non-custodial parents.
I do not intend to be wholly critical. I have sought to give the Minister a constructive brief and a solution to some of the problems. The adversarial style must be replaced by one of assistance and information. If necessary, let there be two forms—one for irresponsible non-custodial parents and one for those who have kept up payments. There must be proper and adequate training of staff, preferably in the operations and style of a service organisation, with training in communicating with people suffering stress. Cases should be assigned to two trained staff who will be accountable for those cases and conversant with the details. Only then will they be able to be effective in managing it, handling appeals in a timely manner and using responsibly whatever powers of


discretion they have. At the moment, no one knows anything specific about cases and no one is accountable. I hope that such suggestions will improve people's relationship with the CSA.
The appeals procedure must be simplified. Non-custodial parents should be able to speak directly to the case officer, especially in connection with corrections and clarification. An information hotline/public assistance number should be available and published in local papers. The agency should be staffed with qualified personnel during extended hours, to help people who cannot telephone or do anything about such matters while they are at work.
The date of the commencement of arrears causes much misery. Arrears have become very expensive and greatly upset the budget of individual households. Assuming that interim assessments are discontinued, and provided that a non-custodial parent returns information in a timely fashion, arrears should begin no more than 30 days out from the date that a completed accurate final assessment is posted by the CSA.
Parents should not be liable for CSA administrative faults and problems, which have in the past caused months of delay, certainly in many of my cases. A system of retrospective financial compensation must be created for those who, through no fault of their own, have accrued arrears during the time taken by CSA deliberations, and new cases must be protected from such overcharging. If the CSA fails to fulfil its obligations to assess and post charges during a certain period, it should absorb the costs, rather than passing them on to the person being charged arrears. The agency must conform to standard business practice.
We keep hearing that the matter is to be reviewed. Indeed, the Government have reviewed it once already, yet the same people come into my surgery saying, "Why did they bother? It didn't help my case." Now we understand that it is all to be reviewed again, but why the delay? Month after month those wretched people are suffering. I find it difficult to bear that any longer, and I press my hon. Friends in Government to produce an early solution to many of the problems that I have described.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I have served on the Select Committee since the House set it up, and we have dealt with many subjects that have caused much heartache to the people who have come before us to give evidence. One of those was the affair of the Maxwell pensioners. But I think that the Child Support Agency has caused the greatest heartache of all.
I have been privileged and proud to be a member of that Committee, but this time I was rather concerned because when we finalised the report we could not reach agreement on many aspects. That was unfortunate because all the members of the Committee work hard, listen to one another and find out what other people's views are, but we still could not produce a report agreed by us all. I am a little concerned about that, and I feel that perhaps we could have done better.
I was once talking to a policeman about people breaking the law and the trouble that he had had at various times, and he said to me, "I'll give you a little bit of advice, Clifford. Don't ever interfere between a man and wife." Apparently, if a couple are having an argument in

the middle of the street or in a house and someone goes to interfere they both turn on him and blame him for all the things that have happened, no matter what the row was about.
I believe that when the House passed the Child Support Act 1991 we failed to realise that truth. We did not realise how sensitive an area we were entering, even leaving aside the question of children. When one interferes between those who have loved one another but who for various reasons no longer do so, one is in difficulty—and that is precisely what the Act does. It attempts to make a judgment between a husband and wife as to what allowances should be paid for the children.
We all know that, sadly, children can be used as blackmail in divorce cases by either partner or both. When we consider the legislation we should bear that fact in mind. Even when people have been divorced and everything has gone well, if they come into the constituency office we tend to find that they do not even refer to each other by name, but talk about "him" or "her". Then we realise that we must be very careful in everything we say and do.
In view of that, one could think that there might be a dispute between the former partners over the children, but when the people who gave evidence before the Select Committee were asked, "Do you think parents should be responsible for looking after their children and supporting them?" the answer was always, "Yes, we believe that they should." So far as I can remember, no one was against the idea. So the task is to devise legislation that will allow that to happen.
Retrospective legislation always causes trouble; any retrospective arrangement does. People are going back over old ground and opening old sores—doing all the things that we would wish not to do in such a situation. I know that some of my fellow members of the Select Committee have said that we should not legislate retrospectively. But why is it not within the realms of possibility for the courts that have already made decisions on cases—they can work retrospectively—to reconsider those cases in the light of the legislation and of the assessments made under it?
There is no reason why a court could not look at such cases if they were brought back, even if they were not retrospective from the CSA's point of view. Indeed, I understand that it is the right of someone receiving maintenance to take the case back to court. So there is no reason why the courts should not consider such cases and say, "In the light of the changed situation let us see if we can make alterations." The advantage would be that those representing the non-custodial parent could have made their own case. Some members of the Select Committee thought that in retrospect the arrangements were unfortunate.
I am not talking about the financial side of things or many of the other things that have been expressed in the debate. I am speaking from the point of view of the child. The object of the legislation was to look after the child; that is why it was called the Child Support Act. If we cannot devise an arrangement that looks after the child we must reconsider the legislation. If we are aggravating the two parents of the child something is wrong with that legislation and it must be re-examined.
Some hon. Members would say that it would be better to allow at least legitimate expenses to the non-custodial parent—expenses that would have an adverse effect on


that parent's ability to pay maintenance for the child. It is a great mistake to ask someone to maintain a child if, at the same time, we remove the ability of that non-custodial parent to have enough money to do it. We should consider the legitimate expenses.
I support the idea of a simpler assessment. It would be much simpler if one could say that it will cost £X if there is one child or two if a parent is divorced. That would be a simpler system and people would at least know what they are up against. Such a system would be helpful. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about the assessment forms. We found it very difficult to use the forms, even after instruction.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have an example of the complexity involved in making an assessment. Four assessments were sent to a constituent of mine on 4 November, each in a separate envelope. Although the amount of income is the same, the assessment in the first letter is for £65.29, in the second it is for £68.86, the third is for £70.27 and the fourth is for £71.12. I have the same difficulty as members of the Select Committee did. I cannot work out which is the correct assessment.

Mr. Forsythe: That intervention reveals the extent of the problem. If one could assess the situation for oneself, the system would be much easier.
If someone disagrees with an assessment, it may be looked at again, but at the end of the day that person will be told, "We are sorry, but that is what the assessment is. If you don't like it, you will unfortunately go into arrears." That will happen regardless of whether that person believes that the assessment is right or wrong.
Someone may come into a constituency office and say that he has applied for disability living allowance, but has been turned down. He may say that he has had a review, but has been turned down again. When that person asks what he can do next, we say that he can appeal. With regard to many cases that hon. Members deal with, we can say, "Well, why don't you appeal? I will attempt to assist you with it." However, we cannot tell our constituents that the best thing to do is to appeal with regard to the CSA because there is no appeal mechanism. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, everyone would expect the right to an appeal. For example, even though many people break the speed limit and are not caught, if they are caught, they can appeal.
One of the Select Committee's greatest problems related to property settlements. A non-custodial parent may have wished the parent with care to have the matrimonial home so that the children could live there, attend school and keep their friends. As such a settlement was reached, people tend to believe that it is part of the arrangement. The Department of Social Security believes that such settlements are a matter between adults. However, I contend that if they are in the interests of the child, they should be taken into consideration.
The disregard is a very good idea. It provides an incentive. Without an incentive, many other problems flow. I fully support the idea of a disregard and I am not being disloyal to my colleagues on the Select Committee because that was my view then and it is my view now. However, I do not wish to repeat that argument.
I remind the House that the Child Support Act 1991 was passed by Members of this place. By doing that, they set up the Child Support Agency and they asked it to administer legislation which the House decreed it should administer. While I realise that mistakes can occur in all walks of life and in all jobs, and that they are very unfortunate in the delicate situation between a former husband and wife, I must place on record the fact that all the staff of the offices that we visited were dedicated, sincere, sympathetic and, above all, worked within legislation set up by the House. Hon. Members should remember that.
It is unfortunate that, at times, individual members of the agency are castigated as things are happening over which they perhaps have no control. While we would encourage the agency to make improvements, we must make it clear that we recognise that there are people in the agency who are doing their very best to work the legislation for which we are responsible.

Mr. Roger Gale: The House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his Select Committee for producing the second report. Some of the earlier comments about the report were slightly churlish. It will not satisfy everyone. No report produced by hon. Members ever does. However, the Select Committee has managed to focus attention again—and, as the Committee said, it is unusual for a Select Committee to do it twice—on a matter which, for a relatively small number of people, is of absolute and paramount importance.
We got this wrong. Hon. Members on both sides of the House got it horribly wrong. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) that, while there have clearly been occasions when individual members of the Child Support Agency staff have not acted like paragons of virtue, it is we who have caused the problems that have created the anguish with which they are confronted. We must remember that.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I was tempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), but he sat down at a crucial moment. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me. He was right to say that we passed the legislation in this House. However, I understand that we passed a very simple Act. Many of the mechanics of the CSA were introduced by orders, none of which was debated in the House. It is a lesson for us all that delegated legislation is not always entirely correct.

Mr. Gale: I concur with what my hon. Friend has just said, as, apart from his comments about CSA staff, I would concur with virtually everything that he said in his extremely excellent speech. The fact remains that we—nobody else—are responsible for legislation, and we got it wrong. We must now get it right.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I hesitate to intervene, but, so that the House and the country are fully aware of the history of the Act, on Second Reading the Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment and highlighted many criticisms that have now been made. That matter should also be on the record.

Mr. Gale: I am prepared to concede that the Opposition, like some Conservatives, are blessed, not infrequently, with 20:20 hindsight.
The Act has shattered agreements that were freely entered into. It has caused untold hardship and misery. It has brought about friction where there was none. It has actually harmed some of the children whom it was designed to assist. The House sought rightly to ensure that parents took responsibility for their children.
It has been suggested that the Treasury is clawing back the money. The money belongs to the taxpayer. It is not the job of the taxpayer or of my elderly constituents in Thanet, North, having worked hard all their lives and now living on modest incomes, to support other people's children. That was the thesis behind the Act of Parliament. As has been said, bits have been bolted on to it and have made it unworkable.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security for the unfailingly courteous manner in which he has responded to some occasionally unfailingly less-than-courteous letters from me. In my correspondence with the Department, I have sought to reflect the genuine anger of honest working constituents who have sought to meet the obligations into which they believed that they had entered. They bitterly resent the fact that those agreements, which were freely entered into, are now being overturned by others and by us.
I am certain that, in seeking to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children, we have reopened maintenance settlements by the back door. Some of my constituents do not regard the Act as a child support Act, and they do not regard the agency as a child support agency. They regard them as an ex-spouse support Act and an ex-spouse support agency.
It would be naive beyond belief to accept that, when there is an improvement in payment that is not simply swallowed up by the taxpayer, money goes to the child. It does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) made the very correct point that we place a burden to contribute upon a new partner of an absent parent, but we take no account whatever of, often, an extremely comfortable life style enjoyed by the partner with custody, with a new partner. It is not fish or fowl. We cannot have it both ways, and we should not try to have it both ways. My hon. Friend the Minister will have to determine either that the full incomes of both households are taken into account or that neither of the new partners' incomes is taken into account.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that could have an extremely damaging effect on a second marriage, and, in some cases, could contribute to its break-up? We have two problems instead of one. Change is absolutely essential to stop that problem and many others that have been mentioned.

Mr. Gale: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We have made a mistake, and the sensible, honourable way forward is to make a change, and as soon as possible. I see no shame whatever, and never have done, in acknowledging that legislation—I can think of one or two other pieces of legislation that are as close to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to mine—needs to be changed. When something is wrong and is not working as intended in the light of experience, the sensible course is for the House to acknowledge that and change it. That is not a U-turn; it is simply to say, "We have looked at this as it is working, and we need to amend it." My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary are engaged in what seems to have been

an interminable review. Nevertheless, that is why the review is taking place, and I hope that changes will be brought forward.
I agree entirely that the worst aspect of the legislation has been its retrospective nature and the fact that, having entered into agreements in court, people now find them overturned. I concur with the view of the hon. Member for Antrim, South that, when the courts made the original disposition, there is absolutely no reason why they should not be asked to review cases. That is the proper way to address a grievance in law. It is extremely dangerous for the House ever to embark on retrospective legislation. I hope that we shall learn lessons from this mess.
I also believe strongly that payments should be needs-related, not means-related. I know that that issue is contentious. There is a strong view that, if an absent parent's circumstances improve, the child should benefit. I do not accept that. Separated families have different and differently developing life styles. If we are to help the child—and let us determine the needs of the child and base the payment on them—and if we are serious about allowing the child in some way to benefit from the improved circumstances, be they so, of the absent parent, anything above the needs-related payment to which I referred should be placed in trust for the child, so that the child will benefit from it when he or she reaches maturity, for example when that kid might be going to university. Otherwise, all that we are doing is rejigging an agreed settlement and giving a former spouse more money to spend on beer and skittles, or whatever. That is not the intention of the Act. The Act is intended to help the child. We must address that matter.
The formula that is used to assess payments does not take into account absent parents' previous debts. That is nonsense. We cannot say that, at the moment a couple separates, all legally binding contracts which have been entered into and which do not form part of a straightforward mortgage repayment must not be taken into account. I refer, for example, to the extension of a house, for which a loan has been taken out—payments still have to be made if a roof is to be kept over the children's heads—a hire purchase agreement for a car that is probably used for work, or any such commitment that was made before the legislation came into being. If previous debts are not taken into account, we cannot possibly claim that we are reflecting true costs out of the income of the absent parent.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course, that matter was in our in-trays when we considered it in Committee, but we did not regard it seriously, because we were confronted constantly with how people were likely to respond to changes such as the one that my hon. Friend suggested. In the case of debts accumulated before separation, the danger is that, by allowing the cost of those debts, we would encourage the accumulation of debts before separation. With the best will in the world, we did not want to create further loopholes, expense and complication in respect of a formula that many right hon. and hon. Members have described as too complicated.

Mr. Gale: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but I do not accept it. In one or two cases malevolent people might run up debts knowing that they will leave their wife or husband in three months' time and that the debts will be taken into account in the calculation. But my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said that he


had been through the trauma of a divorce, and so have I. In the main, divorces are not pre-planned; they are desperately tragic domestic events of the most traumatic and harrowing kind.
I doubt that the sort of thing to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred would happen in the overwhelming majority of cases. Of course it is possible, but I do not think that it is likely that people will stack up debts. I believe that debts should be taken into account in calculating amounts to be paid.
Travel-to-work costs should also be recognised. My constituents in Margate and Herne Bay can, and do, pay up to £2,000 per year in rail fares to commute to work in London. It is crazy that that contribution to absent parents' earning power—without which they would have no earning power because they would not have a job—should not be taken into account. We cannot simply write off £2,000. People will still have to get to work in order to make money to pay their ex-spouse. It is daft.
I have always believed that travel-to-work costs should be tax deductible—it is a straightforward business expense. But that is an argument for another place and time. Perhaps travel-to-work costs exceeding a minimum level could be taken into account. People do not buy rail season tickets to travel from Thanet to London for fun; they buy them so that they can get to work. It seems to me that that cost is fundamental to the formula. I am delighted that the Social Security Committee has made a recommendation to that effect and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will take it on board.
All hon. Members have constituents who are faced with demands for sums which, unless they win the national lottery, they will not be able to pay. We cannot expect someone who is already in straitened circumstances, possibly as a result of a separation or marriage breakdown, to spirit £500, £900, £1,500, £2,000 or £3,000 out of thin air. It is all very well for someone in the CSA to say, "That is your calculated arrears and you must pay it." People have not made provision to pay those sums. In some cases, the calculation of assessments takes months from when the forms are first filled in.
That is no fault of my constituents: they provide the required information. My constituents have come to me with five or six letters— all posted within days of each other— containing different assessments. That is not my constituents' fault; it is the fault of the CSA.
I have constituents who pay sums of money— perhaps £50— which they recognise are probably on the low side; but they have paid them regularly. They agreed to pay those sums and they have kept their part of the contract. They then fill in a form, 11 months go by and an assessment arrives. It is perhaps more than they would like to pay, but it is not always unfair. However, there is also a huge bill for payments in arrears that they are simply not able to meet.
If there is a court order, the arrears payments do not exist. If people with court orders do not have to meet arrears payments, why do people who have been paying money methodically but who do not have court orders face huge bills? What is the difference? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary must address that aspect of the Act because it is causing misery.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that some of the delay in reforming this dreadful Act results from a disagreement as to whether the correct route for change is through primary or secondary legislation. The changes to the Act must be implemented by whatever measures are necessary in order to get it right. If we work out what those measures are, it will become blindingly obvious whether they must be implemented through primary or secondary legislation— or, as I suspect, through both primary and secondary legislation.
I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to implement the Committee's recommendations immediately through secondary legislation. He can then pursue the other necessary changes through primary legislation as quickly as possible. In short, I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to act with some urgency; we have delayed for far too long.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: We are debating a most important estimate, which will become increasingly important for reasons that I will outline, and it is vital that we make the right decisions. I was struck by the fact that two Conservative Members said that Parliament had got it wrong. I hope that we shall consider the implications of that statement for the parliamentary process.
Why did the Parliament get it wrong? I have attended meetings of the Select Committee which is considering the incapacity for work legislation, and I am not convinced that we are getting it right. Committees allow objective scrutiny of the Executive and its decisions, but I have seen Committee members simply voting the way their Whips tell them to vote. I have seen them doing their correspondence, not listening to the evidence or the arguments, and voting the most complex pieces of legislation through on the nod.
I can envisage hon. Members coming to the Chamber in a year or two saying, "We do not know what we did, but the legislation is not working—it is hurting people and we must think again". Although the incapacity for work legislation is not the subject of this debate, I hope that we shall think through the implications of what has been said today and use the Child Support Act 1991 as an important case study. We must consider the need for pre-legislative hearings and we must take our role as scrutineers of legislation seriously.
However, I think that we knew more about the potential effect of the Act than some Conservative Members have admitted. I recall that there was a White Paper which grappled with the complexities of reform in this area. Anyone who read that White Paper, let alone much of the evidence submitted by research and voluntary organisations, would have appreciated that Parliament was grappling with extremely complex matters.
We are considering an important issue, but it is not only our Parliament and our society that are grappling with those problems. Communities around the world—in the Antipodes, Europe and North America—face the same kind of problems. We have heard a lot about divorce in the debate, but almost a third of children born in this country today are born outside marriage—half of them to unmarried lone mothers and the other half to cohabiting parents.
Accumulating evidence suggests that children in both categories are more at risk, both socially and materially, than those born to married couples. There is a stable group of cohabiting parents whose children will do as well or as badly as any other children in this country, but many children born to cohabiting parents live in circumstances which give us cause to worry about their future. We also know that unmarried lone mothers—the group whose number is increasing most rapidly of all one-parent families—are particularly vulnerable.
Regarding marriage itself, we know that the parents of about 25 per cent. of the children born this year and of children born subsequently will divorce before those children reach the age of 16. That involves a high proportion of children, and one which I fear will grow in the future. At the family policies study centre we once calculated that by the year 2000 only 50 per cent. of children in Britain would be born to married parents and remain living with them until the age of 16.
We are not talking about a small minority: a large proportion of adults and children will be affected by legislation of this kind. The issue of parental responsibility and what that means in increasingly diverse family circumstances therefore becomes a crucial moral question, but also a social and financial question. The demographics are complicated by the phenomena of remarriage, the co-habitation of divorced people and, sadly, re-divorce.
The House of Commons, which is still predominately made up of male hon. Members, speaks most lucidly on the issue with a male voice and in the male interest. However, the present principal victims—certainly the principal financial victims—of the social revolution in family change have been women and children. There is no doubt about that. Research shows clearly something which ought to be a matter of common sense. Following a divorce, the man usually gets richer, as he does not have to provide for his children any more. The women and children get poorer. It is a case of women and children last.
Those are the facts. We do not always hear the facts, and the case studies presented to the House on this most controversial of matters are not those case studies. Nevertheless, I put it to the House that those are predominantly the facts. We should therefore be in no doubt at all that reform was needed and that some kind of child maintenance or support Act was also needed. I have no doubt at all about that.
We must treat with much cynicism, and certainly much caution, any suggestion that before the Child Support Act the system was working smoothly; it was not. I am not saying that that suggestion has been made today, although it was nearly made. The system was a social and financial disaster.
Work was commissioned by the Government and carried out by York university on one-parent families. In a sample survey—a respectable piece of statistical work—it found that only 39 per cent. of one-parent families ever received maintenance at all, and that only 29 per cent. received maintenance regularly. I accept that of the 29 per cent. who were making regular maintenance payments some may have been paying at a decent level to safeguard the interests of their children. I put it to the House, however, that most were not paying adequate amounts, and the research shows that to be the case.
Although hon. Members' advice surgery encounters are among the most difficult, we should have the honesty and courage to say sometimes to a father, "You are paying maintenance. How much? You have two or three children. How much are you paying per week? What do you think the costs of a child are a week?" Before the Act, the system was a disaster.
I am interested in the arguments that the legislation should have been retrospective, although I am not sure what my judgment is on that. If those who are putting the argument that it should not have been retrospective do not go on to say that we should have sorted out the court system so that maintenance was collected adequately, they are not addressing the real problem.
One of the important issues, and one of the reasons why the matter is so controversial, is that the Act and its administration raise the question of what the costs of children are in Britain today. The short answer is that children are very expensive, as any parent knows. I do not make this suggestion flippantly, but I sometimes think that if all parents who are paying vast amounts for shoes, clothing, a university education and all the other things involved, suddenly had a Government agency—I do not mind whether it is a privatised agency or not—presenting a child support bill every week with all that we are paying added up, some of us might run to our Member of Parliament to complain. Some of us might even desert our children temporarily, so shocked would we be at their cost. The Child Support Agency makes it all too explicit to fathers what the costs of children are in Britain today.
For most parents, paying for their children and recognising their financial obligations should be among the first calls on their resources, and not among the last. I am not attacking the idea that some legitimate expenses should be in the formula, and the report and the Government must address those wisely. We hear of the various expenses which are put forward, and the argument that only if one has a few pounds left should one have to pay that for one's children. That should not be the case. Looking after one's children financially is among the most important obligations of parenthood. It should not be a matter of small change.
We cannot get away from the fact that someone has to pay the bill, given the expense of bringing up children. We should be spending and investing more money in children, rather than less. Who is to pay? The parents together can pay, the taxpayer can pick up some of the bill—many taxpayers on low incomes are parents themselves—or the costs must be paid for negatively through the poverty of one-parent families and children. Those are the choices that we have. We cannot do away with the cost: someone has to pay in one way or another.
I heard some hon. Members today talking about ex-wives, and how women spend money. The implication—I hope that I have got this wrong—was that wives spend money on luxuries and it never gets to the children. Unless it was intended as a rather dryly delivered lampoon of saloon bar rhetoric, that sort of remark represents a grave insult to the majority of one-parent families made up of mothers and children. Most one-parent families—I do not know whether it is the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—are poor, with 70 per cent. on income support. Among single mothers, the figure is 85 per cent. That may not be the case in certain constituencies, but that is the picture across the country.
I believe firmly that if mothers—sometimes it is fathers, of course—were to receive more money, they would spend it on their children because they need to and because they would take on that responsibility.
That is not to deny that the implementation of the Act has sometimes bordered on the catastrophic. I accept that the injustices which have affected some families and some fathers have been grave. If one is faced with such injustice, that is what counts rather than the more broad brush issues. I accept that unfairness has occurred and that the Act has become an administrative nightmare. We need Government and Parliament to make wise and intelligent decisions about how the system can be reformed.
The theme of my remarks is that a wise Parliament, a wise Government and—dare I say it—a wise press would sometimes listen hard for the silent voices of mothers and children, and not just to the loud, shrill voices which command the most attention on the issue.
If we want child support reform to become a strategy for fairness, we need to introduce a disregard. I regret that that has become a matter of party political controversy, because it should not have done. The issue is clear. A one-parent family on income support has its child maintenance deducted pound for pound, penny for penny from that income support. That means that the vast majority of children who should have been helped by a support measure get no extra money. That is a grave mistake and it is a pity that it has become the subject of political controversy.
I believe that I understand the political history behind the controversy. The former Prime Minister, the then Mrs. Thatcher, on the famous occasion of her lecture to the National Children's Home, said that no father would be able to escape his responsibilities in the future. I think that that promise took Ministers and civil servants at the Department of Social Security by surprise. It was the equivalent of a political hand grenade, with the pin half out, rolling towards the door of the then Secretary of State for Social Security, now the Leader of the House. I am sure that no one will want to confirm or deny my theory, but it is my guess that that is what happened.
In the next chapter, the Treasury, always a bad judge of social policy, saw the opportunity for a new taxation measure to recoup taxpayers' money, which would thus help public expenditure estimates. In the crucial discussions between the Department and the Treasury, the Treasury won. I suspect that the Department argued for a disregard, but we shall never know—or at least not for 30 years or until the memoirs of the Leader of the House are serialised in—

Mr. Bennett: The Sun.

Mr. Wicks: No, the right hon. Gentleman is a man of judgment: he would choose The Observer. We shall then learn the truth.
The Treasury saw the then Prime Minister's commitment as the chance to introduce an Exchequer support Act. That is when things went badly wrong, because the disregard option is now the subject of a political slanging match. The Labour party rightly believes that such a disregard should be introduced, but Tory Back Benchers immediately ask whether that is a Labour party commitment and how much it would cost.
If we had introduced a disregard, we could have presented the Child Support Act 1991 as a policy of fairness—a true child support policy. We could have demonstrated that children were supported. Child support would then have become more accepted as a part of our welfare state and more accepted as a moral responsibility. Savings would have been generated for the Exchequer. That illustrates the fact that the Treasury is a poor judge not just of social policy but of financial policy in anything but the short term.
The Australian example has often been cited. I had the opportunity to speak to child support officials and officials of the Australian tax office, which collects the child support money, when I visited that country in 1989 and 1990. The message I got from Ministers, civil servants and tax officials was that the disregard—in Australia most of the disregard money goes to the mothers and the children—had oiled the wheels of difficult social legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, the Australians said that there was army out there on the side of a disregard. In Australia, mothers rang up the tax office to see how much money had been collected each week and what their share would be. The disregard became part of social policy. It has not been possible to achieve that in Britain.
The issue at stake is how we try to save a decent principle of parental responsibility from poor practice. Some people do not want to save it. It is easy now to win votes in constituencies and to appear the populist by saying that the 1991 Act should be abandoned. I merely want it to be reformed. It would be irresponsible to abandon it now. How do we save that decent principle from poor practice? If we do not get it right, we shall perpetuate new forms of poverty and new inequalities in the future, which will affect many of our children.
If we were wise, we would want to reform the 1991 Act within the context of a wider family policy agenda. One cannot reform the Act on its own. That policy should include reform of the divorce law to put children first. I know that the Lord Chancellor is grappling with that in his planned White Paper. That policy should also include projects on preparation for parenthood to ensure that people take parenthood more seriously, and also family and sex education because there is no reason why 100,000 teenage women should have unplanned conceptions every year. If we pursued a wider family policy agenda and reformed the 1991 Act, Parliament would truly put children first.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made a helpful speech. He has just been appointed to our Select Committee, but judging from many of his remarks, one might think that he had taken part in many of our deliberations. I think that he will be a valuable addition to the Committee.
I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman about the disregard, which has been consistently raised in the debate so far. It may be superficially attractive for taxpayers to provide perhaps an extra £350 million or £500 million to oil the wheels and to encourage the system to work, but that would introduce a major element of unfairness. Why should children who happen to depend on maintenance from a non-custodial parent enjoy the benefits of a household that is significantly better off than that in which


couples have happily remained married? That was one of the main considerations that led a number of us to oppose the disregard proposal.
The disregard also adds significantly to the poverty trap. One of the benefits of the current system is that the parent with care receives the maintenance. To begin with, one of the big problems was that so few of those parents were receiving the full maintenance that the Child Support Act 1991 intended that they should receive. Once they receive that maintenance, however, in addition to the benefit that tops up their income to the income support level, plus family credit, that money is a permanent building block of income for their household, which they do not lose if they move into work. That extra incentive to work would be discouraged if, by moving off income support level and out of family credit, those parents were then to lose the £15 disregard, as recommended by other members of the Select Committee. That problem convinced certain of us that the disregard was not practical and was not worth the additional resources that would have to be devoted to it.
If we can make the 1991 Act work, that would be the best prize that we can deliver to single parents. I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West about the importance of the unsung multitude—the people who do not get sufficient attention—those parents with care on income support levels. We are talking about more than 1 million households in which single parents, on or below benefit levels, look after children. We have received relatively few complaints in our constituency surgeries about the 1991 Act compared with the vast number of people whom the Act is intended to help.
The other points raised by—may I say my hon. Friend—the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were matters that the Committee considered in great detail. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in paying tribute to him. It is a privilege to serve on his Committee, where we have such an open and frank exchange of views. I look forward to working on further reports with him.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead mentioned two main features. One that has not been widely discussed in the debate so far is the appeal system. We spent a long time discussing how an appeal system could be made effective without returning to the failed courts system that we were seeking to replace. The argument concerns gateways: should we create an appeal system with narrow gateways through which people must pass—or narrow conditions for which they must qualify—before they are eligible to appeal; or should we have much wider gateways so that vast numbers of people can appeal? If we choose narrow gateways, the result will be an appeal system that will contribute to widespread disappointment because few people will benefit from the appeal system. If we choose wide gateways, the system will return to extensive discretion and the failed courts system that we sought to replace.
In its purest sense, the Act is not retrospective because the definition of a retrospective Act of Parliament is one that would create a punishment for something that was not a crime when it was committed. This Act does riot do that because it does nothing that the courts could not have achieved, had they been so minded. The question is: why did not the courts enforce higher amounts of maintenance to be paid by non-custodial parents? The answer is that the courts made the most amicable settlements that they

could arrange in the light of benefits available through the benefits system. Had we returned to a system in which there were no welfare benefits, the courts may have been much more active because the survival of single-parent families would have depended entirely on the courts system.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct about retrospection. Many of my constituents are upset by the question of travel costs. The courts could always take travel costs into account, whereas I understand that the new agency cannot. It is hard on someone who lives in Stockport but who works in Merseyside, for example, not to have those considerable costs taken into account.

Mr. Jenkin: Indeed, and that point is reflected in the formula. I accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw because an element of discretion was allowed to the courts but was not reflected in the formula, and we have sought to amend that.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I, too, had great pleasure working with him on the Committee. I chided him there, and do so now in the Chamber, for not being Conservative enough. He has an extraordinary view of how society operates. What actually happened was that this place took little or no interest in whether people on benefit were receiving maintenance payments. All too many of our constituents felt that we would never take an interest in that subject and, by winks and nods, the word went round that it was perfectly proper to start another family because people were not chased for maintenance. Because of the escalating bill, we then decided that we would be interested in collecting maintenance.
In that sense, the Act is retrospective, which is why many of our constituents feel that it is unjust. They started a second family assuming that the House of Commons would never discuss the issue and we suddenly not only took an interest but passed an Act that affected them.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, as I find myself doing so often. The point that I was seeking to make is that the Act is not technically retroactive but, like any change in the law, it affects people's past assumptions and the position that they now confront. I shared with the hon. Gentleman for much our discussions a desire to ameliorate those retrospective effects. Indeed, we concluded in our report—it was one area where we created a consensus rather than having instant unanimity—that the Government should look at aspects of the effect of retrospection on the agreements.
It is important to emphasise and re-emphasise the fact that the courts have never recognised what one or two hon. Members call "clean-break settlements" with regard to the maintenance of children. Courts have always had the power to alter agreements, even when assets were transferred to try to remove the need for maintenance payments to be made. They have always had the power to review settlements and enforce higher maintenance payments.
The most interesting issue that the Committee studied was the introduction of an alternative type of formula. Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birkenhead. As we investigated the matter, we were disappointed to find that it did not solve the problems. We took evidence


from Mr. Frank Bosch and Mr. David Butler on the respective New Zealand and Australian systems. Mr. David Butler said:
Even after six years, Australian Members of Parliament are receiving more complaints about Child Support than any other issues. We are currently under Parliamentary scrutiny which attracted more submissions than any other review in Australia's history".
We decided not to go for a major change in the formula because it would not have satisfied the expectations that it would have raised, given that we were determined to introduce some kind of system to enforce better maintenance.
This has been an extremely important debate and the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) highlighted the extremely sensitive nature of the social reform that the Act seeks to achieve. In that respect, the Act was and is an enormously ambitious project. The benefits system created an environment in which parents, for whatever reason, found it too easy an option to abandon, at least partly, their responsibilities to their children. There is a growing realisation on both sides of the House, evidenced by the contributions of the hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Croydon, North-West, that the Government can no longer ignore the adverse consequences and side-effects of their policies, however benevolent and well intentioned they may be. The evidence is that the benefits system in this case was worsening a social problem.
The costs of those adverse side-effects should not rest solely on the taxpayer. I make no apology for the fact that the measure is designed to recoup money for the taxpayer. That is an important element of the reform. Some 70 per cent. of single parents—1 million households—are on income support and we should reduce that number. Against the background of increasing family breakdowns and the disintegration of traditional society, we all have anecdotal evidence that the Act may already be having a beneficial effect on people's attitudes towards the responsibilities of producing children. What greater responsibility can there be?

Sir Irvine Patnick: When I took my vow of silence, on 25 July 1989, little did I think that my first speech thereafter from the Front Bench—albeit below the Gangway—would be late on a Thursday evening, having spent most of the afternoon in the Chamber, listening to many experts.
I speak as a constituency Member of Parliament, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson). I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and other Committee members for their work in producing the report.
I speak as a constituency Member of Parliament because of some of the constituents who have visited my advice bureaux or sent me letters. The decisions in those letters simply do not appear fair—although I understand that life sometimes can be unfair. As a Member of Parliament, I have to sort the corn from the chaff very quickly, and some of the people who write are very persistent.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, with whom I worked as a Back Bencher in years long past. He considers sympathetically most questions that he is asked. I watch him when he is buttonholed by other colleagues in the House, and he can almost anticipate the words that will be said.
I am aware that the Minister's workload is heavy, and I know the number of letters about the Child Support Act 1991 to which he must reply. None the less, delays occur in the mail and I still expect some replies from him that I would have anticipated receiving by now. [Interruption.] I am always tactful, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows. Even when I sat on the Treasury Bench, I was always tactful.
The Secretary of State was very helpful because, during the European election campaign, he met the chairman and the secretary of the south Yorkshire campaign against the Child Support Agency. They had an opportunity to speak to him "at length"—for a ministerial visit.
I have noticed the changes that have taken place in the Child Support Agency. Letters are being answered far more quickly than ever before. In the past, letters have been delayed because the CSA needed a reference number or wanted further information. If there was ever a reason for the introduction of a national identity card, it is to ensure that a person has one number that is used at all times, so that the agency does not look for other people with a similar, or the same, name.
Once, subject to what must have been a momentary change of opinion, I telephoned the Child Support Agency. One cannot judge everyone at the end of a telephone, but when I got through I did not find the person to whom I spoke conducive to clear exchange of thoughts and ideas. The worst thing that one can do is to put down the telephone, so I endured that telephone call, which, if I had been. someone other than myself, would have caused me great annoyance. I remember saying, "If this is the way in which they behave towards a Member of Parliament, who, as everyone tells me, has some clout, it is sad for other people who telephone the CSA."
The CSA has improved, but one continues to receive lengthy letters from the agency, and I still have to read them several times to understand what they are talking about.
I referred to the south Yorkshire campaign against the Child Support Agency. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead for meeting its members. The hon. Gentleman and I had a private conversation in which we discussed how well they had presented their information. They gave evidence to the Select Committee on 28 June 1994. They have sent me all their reports, which I passed to the Chairman of the Select Committee and also to the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Frank Field: It was their submissions that governed my thinking, which appeared in the draft report but was voted down.

Sir Irvine Patnick: It is always fatal to give way, as I learnt when I sat on the Treasury Bench, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's words.
It always happens in life that, if one does not receive a reply or the reply is not prompt, annoyance results. It makes one frustrated and causes aggravation. The major result is friction, which can be taken out on many people,


such as friends, relatives and other Members of Parliament. Steps must be taken to ensure that cases are processed promptly by the CSA and by the Minister to ensure that people are not, as they would put it, annoyed by the system. I know that, once one becomes annoyed by the system, the system wins.
We must look to the future. I welcome the report. The 1991 Act is on the statute book. I am aware that the Government have altered parts of it and will reconsider it. The agency requires more work—a proper appeal procedure is obviously needed. I await the Government's response to the Select Committee's report. Above all, I await the Under-Secretary of State's reply to the debate.

Mr. John Horam: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), in a notably lucid and heartfelt speech, advanced an important argument, which is increasing as the months pass—that the arrears of back maintenance are accumulating on a huge scale, and very substantial sums are involved.
For example, one of my constituents recently received a letter requesting £4,960.78 in back maintenance, and was required to pay £95.40 per week from 12 December 1994. He accepts that what he paid in the past was probably insufficient, and that he should be paying more. He would have paid more in the past year if he had been asked to do so. What is intolerable, however, is the no-man's land of uncertainty in which he cannot make any estimate of his liabilities. That is not the result of my constituent's position or his previous wife's position; it is simply the result of the length of time that the CSA has taken to reach its decision.
When my constituent received that letter, he asked the CSA what he should do, and he summarised to me the conversation that he had with CSA personnel. They told him that the letter was a computer-generated letter, sent out as a matter of course and that he should ignore it because no full assessment had been made. We have had the extraordinary phenomenon of computer-generated letters being sent out, untouched by human hand, which apparently we must ignore.
Not only was my constituent to ignore that letter, but he was to ignore further letters that he might receive, which were also likely to be computer generated, because the staff could not prevent the computer from generating further letters. He should therefore ignore them until such time as another assessment was made. Not only that, but the staff could give him no idea of the time that the agency would take, in 1995, to reach a proper assessment.
The way in which the CSA operates—even now, with the extra resources that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has allocated to it—causes considerable concern.
I have always felt that retrospection was a fundamental flaw in the CSA approach. As we know, the Australian system is not retrospective, and the criticism of that, which my hon. Friends have made, is that in effect it creates a two-tier system. I would rather have a two-tier system than the injustices that result from people being placed in a situation that they could not have envisaged when they or the courts made their original decisions about their children. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that the system is strictly speaking not retrospective, but that is semantics. We are talking about

what, in common-sense terms, is a totally new situation that was not envisaged by people when they originally made their decisions.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) although, unfortunately, I did not hear all of his speech. One point that he made that was new to me is that people who have been caught retrospectively should have a discount on the amount that they would otherwise have to pay. That is one way out of the problem. It does not meet the whole situation, but it does represent an element of justice and may not require primary legislation which, I understand, is a problem.
The real villain here is not the CSA, whose problems I understand, or even my hon. Friend the Minister, who, with his cheerful, cherubic face and gentlemanly manner, could not possibly be the villain, but the Treasury. It saw this as a taxation measure and a means of restraining public expenditure. Once again, it is exerting a baleful force on what my hon. Friend is able to do.
That is shortsighted because, in the final analysis, under the pressure of events, we shall have to take a longer view and take into account the human justice of the matter and the individual nature of cases rather than have some fixed formula linked to targets determined by the Treasury. My appeal is not only to the Minister, but to the absent force—the Treasury.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). I shall address in a moment his last point about the Treasury effectively driving the CSA according to Treasury objectives.
First, I acknowledge the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who pretty well said it all, as one has come to expect of him. There is little with which I could disagree in what he said, expect perhaps for matters of detail about how we may or may not amend the formula. It is clear to all hon. Members that his chairmanship of the Select Committee has steered it to some constructive work. It is a Select Committee which does not indulge in political stunts, but gets down to business. It has a great cross-party spirit of co-operation, which I hope is evident in the two reports that the Committee has laid before the House.
I do not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. It is perfectly acceptable for the Treasury to say that money should be retrieved from parents if they can afford to pay because the Treasury should never have been required to part with that money in the first place.
There are a number of administrative points that I would like to make, but as time is short I shall mention just two. First, the Act is changing behaviour. I do not fully subscribe to what the late Sir Keith Joseph said in his speech in 1973, but he did point to an issue that is of great concern for social patterns and behaviour in Britain. This Act is changing behaviour and it is doing so in a way that will assist rather than undermine Britain's social fabric.
Finally, I ask the Minister to consider once again what is likely to happen to the workings of the Act once it moves to those parents or absent parents who are not on any form of state benefit. If we can justify the state's being involved in the movement of money within a family where a partner is


on state benefit, it can also be argued that the state has no justification for being involved in the way in which people spend their money when no member of that family is on state benefit. My alarm bells are ringing about what will happen when the state takes on such people. Those are the three points to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will respond this evening.

Mr. Adam Ingram: This has been an interesting debate. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Chairman of the Select Committee, my other hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) who served on the Committee, on their genuine attempt to produce a report which dealt seriously with the many criticisms levied at the Child Support Act and the agency charged with its implementation.
I agree with all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, but particularly with his opening remarks in which he set out his analysis of where we are in terms of the legislation. It is right to say that there is no going back. We can only now go forward. That is the view of the vast majority of hon. Members. That view was echoed most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) in a solid and worthwhile contribution to the debate which raised many serious and worthy issues, not just in relation to the Act and related matters but wider areas as well.
Unfortunately, the tragedy of the debate and the report is that the main recommendations, which would have provided a proper framework for changing the legislation were, as anyone can see from reading the report, taken out by the Conservative majority on the Committee. I hesitate to say that those hon. Members were acting in line with the Minister's wishes. I would probably exonerate the Minister. If he disagrees and tells me that he was dictating the pace and direction of Conservative Members on the Committee, I would have to change my opinion.
However, to those who follow such matters closely, it was clear that something like this would happen. In an article in The Observer on the Sunday preceding the final decision of the Committee, it was clearly stated that a private meeting had taken place between a senior Treasury Minister and Conservative Members of the Committee in which they were specifically told not to deal with the matter of the disregard contained in the draft report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead.
That matter has been raised on a number of occasions in the House and has never been discounted or denied. I do not always believe what I read in newspapers, but it is clear—

Mr. Duncan: One does not need to deny something that never took place.

Mr. Ingram: That is one hon. Member who has said that he was not at a meeting with the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Jenkin: I also deny having any meetings with Treasury Ministers to discuss that particular issue. The only meetings that I had with Ministers was to ensure that they would provide the additional resources to fund the

necessary changes, which might have some support from the hon. Gentleman. I should add that one sentence on which we all agreed appears in paragraph 52:
Finally, any changes we recommend must not only ensure that the system upholds the basic principles of parental responsibility and are fair, but also will be administratively practicable.
That important sentence was included in the report and guided many of the decisions that we took.

Mr. Ingram: We shall have to read carefully the Official Report tomorrow to see exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly, a meeting did take place. Therefore, the article in The Observer was not that misplaced. Perhaps we should have a report on exactly what happened. If such a meeting did take place, that would undermine the very principles and sanctity of Select Committees. That is an issue that will obviously be debated elsewhere.
The Select Committee's report has been strongly and rightly criticised by the many thousands of non-custodial parents and parents with care who had hoped to see a much more radical report. In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and of my other hon. Friends who served on the Committee, I say to the critics, as I have said before, that their anger should be directed towards the Conservative Committee members, perhaps the Minister with responsibility for Treasury matters who advised them and the Treasury for its interference. That is borne out by reading the report and by finding out how members voted on the report. The report's main recommendations are a very much watered-down version of what should have been presented to the House.
I make no apology for making those opening remarks. Every time that he was pressed on what the Government would do about the legislation—in debate after debate and question after question—the Minister said, "Wait for the Select Committee report and then we will act." That is the line that has been taken. He built up an atmosphere of great expectation about what the report would entail. However, more hard times have been visited on people affected by the legislation.
It is important to remember that no mention of any change to the legislation appeared in the Queen's Speech. That was an ominous omission for many people who were hoping that the Government would make a commitment that change would take place. The report is before the House, but that does not mean that the Government have to act on it. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that, of the 12 recommendations in the previous report that was presented to the House, only four were accepted in part or in total by the Government. People should not, therefore, hold out too much hope that the report's recommendations will form the framework of any changes.
I must deal with some of the report's recommendations because they are important and should be responded to positively. On Tuesday this week, I attended a mass lobby of Parliament that was organised by the national Anti-Child Support Act group, which was arranged through the offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). Anyone who thought that the anger and frustration of people involved in groups campaigning against the Act had abated would have been strongly disabused of that view by the meeting. February's amendments of the Act have not won many or any converts to the cause.
Hon. Members' attendance at such events does not mean that they support the principles behind those organised meetings or the views of the groups. The meeting was especially hot tempered, as so many of them are. Although a majority of the people present simply wanted the Act to be abolished—not a view to which I and, I think, the majority of my hon. Friends subscribe—many interesting and valid points of criticism were raised and they must be dealt with if the Act is ever to be accepted by the wider community.
The issue of parents with care who fraudulently obtain benefits was one of the issues that was thrown up at the meeting. Usually, when an assessment charge is levelled against a non-custodial parent, he or she says, "What is happening to my ex-partner?" If the parent with care is making a fraudulent claim, the non-custodial parent reports that person to the Child Support Agency, which reports that person to the Benefits Agency. Of course, if fraud is proven, the parent with care is taken off benefit.
People who report parents with care feel aggrieved that they still have to pay maintenance for which a claim has been made. They have saved taxpayers' money, yet they are still expected to pay more and they feel a great sense of unfairness. I have sought answers from the agency and the Minister on this matter and none of their explanations is clear. If the Minister has time, it would be useful if he dealt with that point. I raise it because an individual at that hot-tempered meeting made a reasonable request for an explanation of the matter.
Obviously, I do not have time to deal with all the aspects and recommendations of the report. It would have been impossible to set out the Opposition's view on all 22 of the report's recommendations in the time available. I want to deal, however, with one or two issues and to highlight where we stand on them.
Recommendations xii and xiii seem to be eminently sensible. It cannot be right that parents with care are placed in severe financial difficulties because assessed maintenance is not paid or is paid irregularly. That point came home to me during my weekly surgery last Friday when I dealt with a case of a parent with care whose ex-husband was a compulsive gambler. During the setting up of the maintenance arrangements, she informed the agency that weekly payments were the only means by which she could guarantee to receive regular payments. She feared that, if he did not pay weekly, her ex-husband would fritter the money away because he was a compulsive gambler.
Weekly payments were set up. She received £87 per week. Her family credit was consequently reduced to £9 per week on the basis of the assumed income that 'would arise from the assessment. Shortly after that, however, her ex-husband changed the arrangements and asked the Child Support Agency to make a direct debit system available to him. It did so without consulting the recipient of the assessment. Lo and behold, he immediately cancelled the direct debit.
That case is not unique—many hundreds, if not thousands, of other people have suffered similar problems. My constituent receives only £9 family credit. She received the last payment from her ex-husband on 28 October and she will not receive another payment until the end of January when the deductions from earnings order takes effect. For three months, including the Christmas period, she will receive very much reduced income. Clearly, the system is inflexible. That is why

recommendations xii and xiii, if they were implemented, would go a long way towards helping people in those circumstances.
Clearly, we must deal with the underlying principle of the Child Support Act: what is in the best interests of children affected by it. It is regrettable that the majority of Committee members rejected the principle of the maintenance disregard. I have heard the arguments. Time is tight so I cannot deal with all the arguments. In pages 28 and 29 of the report, a strong case is made to counter the arguments against the maintenance disregard. Pages 28 and 29 set out the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in relation to that matter. Sadly, the recommendations on pages 28 and 29 were voted down by the Conservative majority.
I should like to deal with the clean-break arrangements and the extension of exempt income elements. We welcome the fact that the report gives some recognition to the need to consider past property and capital settlements, which were agreed before the Act came into force. That case is well made in paragraphs 45 to 50 of the report. There can be no doubt that this aspect involves retrospective application of the Act. Whether it does or not, that is how it is perceived, accepted and understood by people who have been conditioned by it. Those non-custodial parents feel that, as a consequence, they are in a difficult position.
A similar strong argument can be advanced in relation to necessary expenditure, including travel-to-work and access-to-children costs, which are not mentioned in the report. It seems that the report contains an inherent contradiction. It rejects the principle of an independent appeal system that could deal with extra, exceptional costs, yet it goes on to say that travel-to-work costs should be included.
Anyone dealing with individual cases knows that the matter involves not only travel-to-work costs, important though they are. There are many examples of access-to-children costs where non-custodial parents spend a lot of money ensuring that they continue to maintain contact with their children. That is denied to them because of the high assessment level. An independent review system would allow that sort of argument to be advanced and considered. If children's interests are at stake in those circumstances, a change could be made to the assessment to ensure that children do not suffer as a consequence of the assessment that has been levelled against parents.
I must finish my speech and let the Minister respond to the debate.
I have touched on only some of the main aspects of the legislation. My assessment of the report is that the real issues have been ducked or have been extracted from it by the voting pattern of the Conservative majority on the Committee. The Labour party has argued consistently for four fundamental safeguards to be written into the legislation and they are worth repeating. We have asked for a more flexible financial formula, recognition of clean-break settlements, an independent appeals procedure which would allow departure from the standard formula in exceptional circumstances and a disregard for families on income support.
The Chairman's draft report generally sought to achieve those objectives. It is a great pity that those objectives could not become recommendations with which the Government would then have to deal. Our view is that the


report does not go far enough and the Government have not acted fast enough. We need fundamental reform of the Act. We do not need more uncertainty, indecision and inaction from the Government. Inertia and delay are no substitute for policy. The Government need to act now.

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Sometimes, people wonder what satisfaction I get from doing my job. This afternoon, we have experienced two of the reasons why I get satisfaction from doing what I do. First, I am involved with extremely good people and some of them have participated in the debate. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been praised from many quarters and I add my own tribute. The addition of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) to the Select Committee will certainly strengthen it. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) are also members of the Select Committee. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is soon to become the hon. Member for Rutland. I am pleased with that change in local government.
I also work with good people who are not seen by hon. Members—those who work for the Child Support Agency. They are able and caring people who provide advice to the Department of Social Security.
Another reason for my satisfaction is that this is such an important issue. Some of the speeches have touched on the philosophy behind the Child Support Act 1991. The hon. Member for Birkenhead set the tone when he discussed the important move of a crucial item of responsibility away from the state and towards the individual. He said that that social change was almost unique in the post-war era, and he was right. He also said that it was highly unlikely that it could be done without pain. Perhaps that was one thing that the House missed two or three years ago in the general support for the Child Support Agency. The hon. Gentleman rightly brought us back to that point.
The reasons why the Act was needed were best set out by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West. Sometimes, the House forgets those who have been most silent in this argument—the parents with care, the single parents, most of whom live in poverty. The hon. Gentleman set out the difficulties that they have experienced.
Most hon. Members who participated in the debate did not miss the crucial role of the Treasury. The CSA is not a Treasury support agency. We all knew, because it was in the Bill, that a burden had been placed on the state—for "state" substitute "taxpayer". As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, one of the purposes of the Act was to move that burden back to the individual. We cannot avoid the fact that if that responsibility is moved, it will land on the shoulders of individuals, who are bound to make a noise.
The exception to those comments is the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). He criticised the Select Committee and talked about a Treasury support agency. The Liberal Democrats were around when the Bill was considered and they knew what was going on. The hon.

Gentleman and his colleagues were not around during the deliberations of the Select Committee because there was no representative from the Liberal Democrats on the Committee. There could have been and there should have been. It ill behoves them now to pop up out of the blue and make criticisms.
Although today may not be full of enormous joy for all quarters of the House, at least we will be spared a Liberal Democrat by-election victor appearing on our screens later this evening, with all the difficulties that that would cause. I look forward to welcoming a new hon. Friend here next week—[interruption] The evening may unfold in another way.
Having set the background and recognised how we got here, I want to talk about the Select Committee report and the agency. Time is short, but I must make it clear that this is not the Government's definitive response to the Select Committee report. I hope that that will be made before the end of January. We have about two months from the publication of the report. We want to get it right.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) talked about inaction. I fully appreciate that this process has taken time, but I know that he is aware of the genuine thought that has gone into this and of the consultation that is taking place with interested parties to try to get this right. We all have a responsibility to see that that occurs.

Mr. Bennett: Many of my constituents are waiting for the Government's response. Can the Minister assure us that he will not just reply to the Select Committee's report but set out a timetable for making some changes so that people see some benefit at the end of January, rather than just proposals that will take another six or 12 months to implement?

Mr. Burt: I am sorry, but I cannot anticipate what I may say in January. The hon. Gentleman knows that making changes takes time because of the procedures of the House. Some things can be done administratively and the agency has already been engaged in some changes to improve its efficiency. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if the changes require any legislation, either secondary or primary, they will inevitably take time. If it is his wish to improve things quickly for his constituents, it is likely that he will support any measures that would do that.
I have listened with interest to the various points raised about the Committee's proposals for change. We have heard a number of times the arguments for a disregard on income support. I understand the point about the desire for cheerleaders. My hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North and for Bolton, North-East explained to the House that difficulties are associated with the income disregard, particularly its potentially adverse impact on incentives to work. A disregard may be welcomed by some parents with care, but it is important to look at the effect of any changes that that would produce. Such a measure would be expensive.
As my colleagues have mentioned, to date we have felt it best to concentrate available resources on in-work benefits, where that helps by increasing work incentives. Although that approach was rejected by the Select Committee, it is an idea and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead that it is important to achieve balance and to consider the interests of parents with care. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that has struck a chord with me.
Another consideration has been the pressure for an appeals system over and above the one that is already in place—we must not forget that one already exists. The current system is based on the way in which appeals work in our benefit system. The pressure is to allow discretion to vary what we have already provided for in the maintenance formula. Hon. Members clearly had in mind an objective system for considering appeals. However, if there is discretion, how is it controlled?
There was wide discretion in the systems we replaced. Hon. Members will be aware of the wide variations that were found during the research for the White Paper. The House will know that I am concerned with the low priority that child maintenance received under the old arrangements. Australia does have a discretionary appeals system, albeit tightly defined. It is necessary there because Australia does not have such a detailed formula as ours.
Although the Select Committee did not recommend an appeals system, I am aware of the strong feelings on the issue. In previous remarks to the House, I have made it clear that the principle of discretion is not the only issue; serious consideration of the gateways to such discretion is essential and, despite many months of debate, no potentially workable solution has been offered by Opposition Members. Therefore, we are carefully considering, as we always have, whether it is possible for any form of discretionary appeals system to be grafted on to an objective system without losing the point of the previous system. I am keeping an open mind and so is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I also know that hon. Members are especially concerned about maintenance assessments where the parties have existing arrangements through the courts based on the so-called clean-break principle. Before the Child Support Act was introduced, it remained open for the parent with care to seek an increase in child maintenance in such cases. It was also part of income support law that the Secretary of State could seek child maintenance in those benefit cases. The clean break was between the spouses and could not exclude provision for periodical child maintenance payments.
The Select Committee requested that illustrative examples be provided for the House demonstrating the effects of varying the basic maintenance calculation to take account of previous arrangements. Those have been provided. We have been carefully considering the issues involved, which, for all its deliberations, the Committee was not able to resolve. But we keep an open mind on that, too.
We are well aware of the strength of feeling about taking into account various expenses in the maintenance formula. There is an argument about changing to a very simple formula, as advocated by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and taking the advice of the Australians, with their experience. Frankly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North reminded us, the advice of the Australians now is that we should not go for that option. We are still strongly influenced by the experience of the Australians which shows that that may not be the right road for us to go down.
We welcome the Committee's endorsement of not only the basic principles of the agency but the idea that child maintenance should take priority over other expenditure. Our approach has been to make sufficient allowance within the basic formula and protected income provisions to enable absent parents to make choices. But again, we

have heard many comments; we will consider more carefully over the next few weeks what has been said about expenses, and we will respond in due course.
I shall briefly comment on the agency's performance as I know that time is tight. I listened very carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggiin), for Orpington (Mr. Gale) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick). I know the strength of feeling among my hon. Friends about the agency's performance. I accept that the agency has not always got things right and apologise for when that has happened. We must improve. There are signs of improvement and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam for having mentioned them.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) for his comments. Anyone good enough to win an Irish cup winners medal has a ready ear as far as I am concerned. His kind comments about the staff were appreciated, as were a number of comments on the new chief executive of the agency and what she is trying to do in picking up from the task embarked on by Miss Ros Hepplewhite.
There are examples of improvement in the agency's procedures. A new telephone system enables calls to be dealt with by the business teams more quickly. There are improvements in output. More cases have been cleared already this year than in the whole of the previous year. More money is being collected through the child support arrangements that are being set up. All round, effort is being made through computer improvements and administrative enhancements to improve the flow of work through the agency. There is great determination from me, my right hon. Friend, the chief executive and all in the agency to produce a better all-round performance.
I am grateful for this brief time in the House this evening to respond a little to the debate. I hope that the House is in no doubt about our good intentions. It is not a great party issue; it is an issue for the House. We set about a social change and we are determined to make it work; we know that it has not worked as we had wished and we are sorry for the hurt that it has caused to some genuine people. The reasons for the agency and the principles behind it were right and we are determined to make it work.

Mr. Frank Field: With the leave of the House, I would like to make one observation. Wherever possible, we politicians should not put our sticky fingers into people's private lives. When we have to, where children are concerned, we have a paramount duty to listen carefully to those who are affected by those measures. Please do not let the House think that even if we make sweeping reforms this time, we will have solved the problem. Life is far too complicated to fit into the simple models that we pass in this Chamber.
The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings was deferred.

VOTE ON ACCOUNT, 1995–96

Class XIX, Vote 4

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1993–94 on the Powers, Work and Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman (House of Commons Paper No. 33–1 and-11), the Fifth Report from the Committee of Session 1993–94, containing the Government's reply thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 619) and the Sixth Report from the Committee of Session 1993–94 on the Report of the Health Service Commissioner for 1992–93 (House of Commons Paper No. 42)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum not exceeding £4,277,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31 March 1996, for expenditure of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales on administrative costs.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. James Pawsey: I welcome this debate; the first since 1991. Clearly that is far too long an interval and the House should be given greater opportunity to consider the work of the Parliamentary and National Health Service Commissioners, especially since the duties and the powers and responsibilities of the former have indeed been considerably increased.
Currently, the posts of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the National Health Service Commissioner are held by one and the same man—a case of two persons in one being, or as I have heard him described, the dynamic duo. It may be for the convenience of the House and for the purpose of brevity were I to use the more common name, the ombudsman, as I refer to those posts in my speech.
I shall briefly outline some of the powers and duties of the ombudsman. The office of ombudsman was created in the United Kingdom in 1967. Since that time, his role has evolved and changed. Therefore, I shall first refer to the parliamentary ombudsman. The Select Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, is responsible for some of changes which are now taking place to the ombudsman's duties. Let me immediately pay tribute to Mr. William Reid, the current holder of the office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear hon. Members across the Chamber agreeing with that general sentiment. He brings to his position an enormous capacity for hard work and a great insight into the workings of Government. Under his careful direction, the office has grown as the work load has increased. I have discovered that he has a very sturdy Scottish independence of mind, which has been of particular benefit to English complainants.
This may be an appropriate opportunity to mention Mrs. Jill McIvor, the Northern Ireland ombudsman, who does sterling work in the Province, often in extremely

difficult circumstances. The House may wish to know that from time to time we visit the Northern Ireland ombudsman to take evidence.
The workload of the Select Committee has substantially increased over the past two years or so. The Committee now meets once or twice each week. Evidence has been taken from a range of Ministers, from the Secretary of State for Health to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It has also taken evidence from the Legal Aid Board, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Inland Revenue and many others.
The Committee, in its first report in the past Session, has undertaken the most comprehensive study for some 25 years into the powers, work and jurisdiction of the ombudsman. Our report was published on 13 January this year; a more auspicious date than perhaps it may sound. I am pleased to advise hon. Members that the Government have accepted many of the report's recommendations, and they are contained in our fifth report of last Session. They are designed to reform the way in which the ombudsman is appointed and his office financed and also to ensure that all Government Departments learn from the ombudsman's reports.
The principal recommendations were that Government and Parliament would meet the requirements for the funding and resources necessary for the ombudsman's enlarged responsibilities. I know that the House will welcome the information that the PCA's cash limit was increased to more than £5 million for 1993–94 and for 1994–95 it will rise to some £9.5 million. That additional figure will take into account the PCA's much enlarged responsibility.
The Committee recommended that the two offices of the parliamentary ombudsman and the health service ombudsman should continue to be held by the same person. I must, however, strike a warning note for, as the workload increases, it may at some time in the not too distant future be necessary to split the two offices so that the responsibilities are no longer borne by one office holder. The Government also agreed that the relevant statutes should be amended to refer to "the Parliamentary Ombudsman" and "the Health Service Ombudsman". I know that that helpful clarification will be much appreciated both inside and outside the House.
The Committee recommended that
the Government introduce legislation to meet the expenses of the Office from moneys voted directly by Parliament on estimates prepared by a 'Public Administration Commission'.
I am delighted to say that the Government have agreed to accept that recommendation, and will amend the statutes as opportunity presents itself. The Committee also recommended
that epitomes of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's reports be circulated by the Office of Public Service and Science to all Government departments".
The Government accepted that recommendation, too. In his response, my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to refer to a development that was welcomed by both the Select Committee and the Government.
The Committee suggested that the public bodies and departments reported upon should be required to publish a report to the ombudsman describing ways in which identified maladministration has been rectified. I am happy to say that that suggestion, too, was accepted.
The House will appreciate that time permits me to mention only a small number of the Committee's recommendations; and those who want more detailed information must refer to its reports. I have received correspondence about the recommendations from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which relate to the recommendations that will be published in our first special report of this Session.
Not all has been sweetness and light. The Committee was somewhat disappointed when the Government rejected its request that a debate be held each Session on the work of parliamentary, health service and Northern Ireland ombudsmen. I believe that, in that instance, the Government's action was somewhat short-sighted, and did not acknowledge the ombudsmen's substantially increased workload and responsibilities. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the Opposition spokesman, agrees with me; again, my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment.
It strikes me as anomalous that the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General is debated annually in the House, while the reports of the ombudsmen are not. Recent special reports issued by the parliamentary and health service ombudsmen have served to highlight the need for effective scrutiny and standards of administration in the public service, to which my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to refer.
Not content with merely making recommendations to Government, the Select Committee also made six specific recommendations to the parliamentary ombudsman. The most important referred to the length of investigations: the Committee urged the ombudsman to make
every effort … to reduce still further the time taken … to meet the nine months target.
The ombudsman fully shared the Committee's objectives, but made the point—which I know to be valid—that the matters that he investigated were complex and contentious, dealing with the seeking of redress, and could stretch over many years.
The Committee also recommended
that the Ombudsman's Office conduct a survey into public awareness of the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman",
and that
a 'consumer satisfaction' survey be conducted into the attitudes of complainants who have had their cases investigated by the Ombudsman.
The ombudsman responded by saying that he always sought, through the media, to improve public awareness of his office and the way in which it provides a service to the public.
I am happy to say that the Government accepted the Committee's recommendation that the ombudsman's office produce publications on good administration. That, the Committee said, would have the dual aim of publicising the ombudsman's work and improving administration.
The Committee conducted a major survey of the attitude of Members of Parliament to the ombudsman's work. Some 333 Members responded, and 79 per cent. said that they considered the work and record of the PCA to be either very successful or quite successful. What the Committee found more worrying was the reply to the question, "How often do you refer complaints to the PCA?" We were dismayed to learn that only eight Members of Parliament frequently did so, that 174

sometimes did so and that no fewer than 150—45 per cent. of those who responded—seldom or never did so. I found that particularly worrying, because it may mean that Members of Parliament are still unaware of the assistance that is readily available to them from the ombudsman—and, through them, to their constituents.
Let me say to hon. Members who fear that the ombudsman may weaken or impair the relationship that exists between an individual Member of Parliament and his constituents that that will not happen. All Members of Parliament naturally defend that relationship, and pursue constituents' cases with the utmost vigour; but the ombudsman provides a Rolls-Royce service that is truly invaluable, especially in the difficult and protracted cases with which we must all deal from time to time. He has the facilities for detailed examination that are denied to the individual Member of Parliament, with his secretary and researcher.
The Select Committee devoted considerable time to the issue of the "MP filter"—the device that ensures that a complaint can be passed to the PCA only by the Member of Parliament involved. After considerable deliberation, it was decided that the filter should be retained. Let me add a note of warning, however: the justification for its retention will be damaged if more Members of Parliament do not refer cases to the PCA.
It may now be instructive to turn to the ombudsman's report for 1993. Some 208 investigations were completed in that year; we discovered that that was the highest number for some 12 years. The number of complaints referred to the ombudsman by Members of Parliament was 986—the highest number for some 13 years. Paradoxically, however, the number of Members of Parliament referring complaints fell: 31 fewer than in the previous year.
The PCA reported that the number of complaints under investigation at the end of 1993 was some 333—the highest number ever. The increased work load meant, however, that the length of time taken to complete an investigation increased to 13 months. I know that that was a source of disquiet to both the ombudsman and the Select Committee. They found the increase in the time taken to resolve complaints particularly disappointing in view of the nine-month target time.
A recent innovation was the publication of details of fast-track cases—cases referred to the commissioner that did not require the full investigative treatment. They were resolved by an exchange of letters or telephone calls. At this point, I must pay tribute to the Northern Ireland ombudsman because it was her idea to introduce the fast track and it has clearly been accepted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
Of the 208 cases completed in 1993, 107 led to financial or other tangible redress for the complainant involved. Of the investigations completed, 61 per cent. were found to be wholly justified while in 35 per cent. of cases the complainant was found to be partly justified. The House will not be surprised to learn that the ombudsman's "best customers" were the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. They certainly


generated a considerable number of complaints, which is not surprising as they impinge on the public to a much greater extent than most other Departments.

Mr. David Nicholson: Before my hon. Friend discusses particular Departments, will he reflect on our constituents' satisfaction with the ombudsman system? The Committee heard no evidence to suggest that constituents ware not able to find Members of Parliament to take up their grievances. Will he confirm that a constituent does not have to refer a matter to the ombudsman through his or her own Member of Parliament if that Member of Parliament is unwilling?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable in these matters and is an assiduous attender at Select Committee sittings to which he makes useful contributions. He is right in his supposition that it is not necessary for a constituency Member of Parliament to pursue his constituent's case. Should that Member of Parliament refuse to do so for whatever reason—there are justifiable reasons from time to time—it is usual for the complainant to write to the chairman of the Select Committee and for him to pursue the case.
Members of the Select Committee often see tangible expressions of pleasure displayed by complainants because of the way in which their cases are handled. I am thinking especially of health service cases when the Committee takes evidence from various witnesses, usually health authorities. As colleagues will know, the complainants are often in the Committee Room listening to the discussion and often make it clear that they are pleased with the Committee's response.
In 1993, four special reports were published. That is the largest number ever issued by the ombudsman in a single year. A special report is currently being produced on the Child Support Agency, which was the subject of an earlier debate today. It will be published early next year. The Select Committee has been concerned for a considerable time about the fairly obvious maladministration within the CSA and I am certain that the ombudsman's report will have a substantial bearing on any future agency reforms.
The Select Committee also decided to set up thematic inquiries, the first being on redress. It will be recalled that the citizens charter promises
better redress for the citizen when things go wrong".
The Committee therefore invited a number of Departments and other bodies to submit memorandums describing their practices with regard to redress. Additionally, those memorandums were supplemented by oral evidence. The report will shortly be produced and will certainly serve to highlight the many anomalies that we discovered between the various Departments as to how they regard redress and the way in which the anomalies could be resolved.
Further examples of the additional workload accepted by the PCA and the Select Committee have emerged from the White Paper on open government which was published in 1993. The House will recall that it introduced a non-statutory code of practice on access to Government information. The code establishes the right of citizens to request information from Departments relating to their policies, actions and decisions. It is policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster he said:
Citizens will thus have an independent investigator working on their behalf. The ombudsman will be able to report to Parliament if he finds that information has been improperly withheld".
The White Paper also specified, perhaps somewhat unusually, a role for the Select Committee in the operation of the code. My right hon. Friend said:
The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be able to call Departments and Ministers to account for failure to supply information in accordance with the code, as they can now call them to account for maladministration and injustice.
One of the key issues in the freedom of information debate is, of course, enforcement and it is clear that both the ombudsman and the Select Committee have a key role in the enforceability of the code itself.
One of the fundamental differences between the two offices is the fact that the Health Service Commissioner may receive complaints directly from a member of the public. It is not necessary for complaints to be fed to him by a Member of Parliament. That is an extremely important distinction. As the House will appreciate, it means that there is no "MP filter" in the operation of the Health Service Commissioner. May I say how delighted I am that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is here tonight in his usual place. His presence is a sign of the importance that Departments attach to the ombudsman's reports.
I found it especially significant that, in his report for 1993–94, the ombudsman said:
Almost every ombudsman has found in recent years an increase in the complaints referred. We live in a querulous and questioning age but it is noteworthy that the level of complaint against the NHS is still remarkably low when judged against the enormous numbers of admissions to hospitals for in-patient or day treatment. In 1993–94 more complaints were sent to me than in any year since the Health Service Commissioner was called into being".
To put that in perspective, I think that I am right in saying—the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that something like 8 million people were treated in NHS hospitals in that time.
In a memorable turn of phrase, which I know that colleagues will remember, one witness who came before the Committee said:
Complaints are 'jewels to be treasured'.
The Select Committee and the ombudsman have seen many jewels over the past two years. However, it should be remembered that complaints serve to ensure that citizens receive better service.
While taking evidence we too often found that there was a defensive attitude towards complaints. People who come before the Committee should understand that we recognise that no one is perfect, and a little less defensiveness and a little greater acceptance of fault would go a long way.
Members of the Committee were concerned about the attitude occasionally displayed by bureaucrats, who sometimes seemed so wrapped up in their own armour that they would not accept, or did not appear to accept, some of the criticisms levelled against them. I found one specific case especially disturbing, and it might be helpful if the Committee made representations directly to the Secretary of State about it.
Interestingly, the review committee set up by the Government under the chairmanship—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am sure that the Secretary of State would be pleased to receive such a communication, because it is her wish, and that of the NHS, that every case be looked at and lessons learnt. As evidence of that, I can tell my hon. Friend that the commissioner's latest report will be going from the chief executive of the NHS to every health service chief executive in the country—as an early Christmas present, perhaps.

Mr. Pawsey: It certainly will not constitute light bedtime reading.
My hon. Friend has been kind enough to intervene in my speech and talk about the circulation of the report. Circulation of the report is one thing, but perhaps he can tell me how we can ensure that notice is taken of its contents. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the reports could do much to improve the quality and the standard of the service that patients receive in hospital. But if that is to happen, it is of paramount importance that the reports be read, studied and digested, and that their findings be implemented. If that does not happen, there is no point in producing them.
I was about to mention the review committee set up by the Government under the chairmanship of Professor Alan Wilson, which suggested that clinical judgment be brought within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. The same review committee, in its report published in May, supported the Select Committee's recommendation to extend the health service ombudsman's jurisdiction to general practitioners. We shall await the Government's response to our recommendations on the reform of the NHS complaints procedure. We revisited that issue following the report of the Wilson committee, and our further comments on the reform of the NHS complaints procedure are contained in the sixth report from the previous Session.
Much of the Select Committee's time was devoted to obtaining evidence from the health authorities that figure in the ombudsman's report. Objectively, I must tell the House that some of the cases that we considered were truly appalling. At times it seemed that a contempt for the patient was displayed; some of the evidence obtained was dreadful, and there were times when I felt ashamed of the service that the complainant had received. If some of my hon. Friends are successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they may wish to enlarge on that aspect of the Committee's work.
In his report for 1993–94, the ombudsman said that he had received a record number of new complaints, amounting to 1,384—an increase of about 12.8 per cent. on the previous year. He accepted 203 for investigation, compared with 164 in 1992–93. As a result, the time taken to complete investigations rose to 48 and a half weeks.
In many cases investigated, the ombudsman criticised management for abdicating their responsibilities and for breakdowns in communication. The cases published in the report undoubtedly provide lessons for Ministers and senior management on the pitfalls that should be avoided. That comes back to the point discussed earlier; the public are certainly entitled to expect that the NHS will learn from the ombudsman's investigations. The epitomes of

selected cases are widely circulated throughout the NHS and there is no excuse for health service managers not knowing of their content.

Mr. Michael Lord: As my hon. Friend knows, members of the Select Committee see complaints covering a range of services, but does he agree that the national health service is unique in that complaints in that area are invariably about events that have affected somebody's health, or a relation's health, or even somebody's death? We must remember the importance of the subject matter to the people concerned. That is not quite the same with the Inland Revenue or any other service that, although important, is different in that crucial respect.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a telling and valid point. He is right to remind the House that we are talking about human beings with feelings. There are times when I feel that we may lose sight of that, and I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend's point.
The health service commissioner published a special report in February, the first on an individual case. It was about the failure by the Leeds health authority to provide care for a man left highly dependent following a stroke. After about 20 months of acute care, the hospital discharged him to a nursing home. The commissioner found that long-term nursing care should have continued to be provided by the health service, so the health authority concerned was invited to reimburse the man's wife for the costs incurred following his discharge. 1 am happy to tell the House that that recommendation was accepted. In addition, the health authority undertook to review its entire policy on the provision of continuing care for such patients.
I have referred to that specific case in some detail because it has important implications for the health service as a whole. I think that the Under-Secretary will agree that it is unacceptable for long-term patients to be discharged from hospital into the care of nursing homes purely on the ground of cost. I am delighted, although not surprised, to see that my hon. Friend is nodding in assent.

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The case led not only to that particular health authority reinstating the patient so that he received the care that he needed and deserved, but also to my Department drafting a circular reminding health authorities of their continuing responsibilities in that regard. That has been out for consultation and we shall shortly produce a final version to be distributed so that people receive the care that they need and deserve from the health service.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and timely intervention.
I mentioned earlier the increase in the number of complaints being referred to the NHS ombudsman. There is a growing awareness of his existence, but I suspect that there are still many dissatisfied complainants who are unaware of his office. It remains a sad fact that some NHS authorities, and even community health councils, cannot provide the ombudsman's correct address. Some authorities do not make clear in their own procedures—that includes their leaflets—the patient's right to take a complaint directly to the ombudsman.
I mentioned poor communication earlier, and there is little doubt that that is a major cause of complaint. I know that members of the Committee will recall, for example,


a case in which differences of view emerged about who was responsible for telling a patient's next of kin about a deteriorating condition.
The Select Committee has long been concerned about the inadequacy of records. Sadly, that continues to be a source of great disquiet, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take the point on board.
One of the intentions of the debate is to make Members of Parliament and citizens more aware of the work of the ombudsman.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend just mentioned the lack of communication in the health service. As my hon. Friend the Minister is present, may I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that we hear much criticism these days about the number and cost of managers in the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital that that vast service, which spends more than £30 billion a year and which has so many staff, is properly managed and that there is proper accountability for mistakes, for communication and for dealing with patients and telling them what is happening?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend draws on his wide experience of the House in order to make a point which my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard.
Increasingly, there is less reason to suffer in silence. That applies to patients in hospital as much as to taxpayers at home. Those who believe—there are many of them—that their particular case has not been handled correctly or that they have suffered maladministration, can obtain redress. In the case of the parliamentary commissioner, that redress comes through a Member of Parliament. In the case of the health service commissioner, the complainant can go directly to him.
Whatever route is taken, the ombudsman will ensure that the complainant's case is thoroughly investigated and that a detailed report of the findings is produced. It is the duty and responsibility of the ombudsman to defend and protect citizens against what can be a sometimes over-bearing and bureaucratic state. Justice is what the ombudsman is about—and that is justice for the citizen.

Dr. Tony Wright: I apologise for the fact that, due to an unavoidable and pressing engagement shortly, I shall not be here for the duration of the debate.
Sweden first acquired an ombudsman back in 1808. We managed to do so in 1967. There was a good deal of debate at the time as to whether we should acquire one. It is perhaps worth recalling those days to obtain a sense of the system about which we are talking today.
An ombudsman system was recommended in a report by Justice. The Government of the day did not think that it was a good idea and set their face against it. A new Government were elected in 1964 and promised institutional reform. They embraced the idea of the ombudsman as part of that reform and passed the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
Although that legislation may seem to be an established part of the system now, and something to which we all nod assent and take collective credit for, it is worth

recalling that it was a highly controversial measure at the time. I am trying very hard not to make this a partisan point because, happily, we have moved on from the days that I am describing. However, many people, especially among the then Conservative Opposition, thought that the procedure was a dangerous constitutional innovation. They thought that it would subvert the constitution and the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents. They also thought that it would damage the efficiency of government.
During the passage of the legislation, that line was taken by the Conservative Opposition led by Quintin Hogg who said that:
the new machinery will undermine the position of the individual Member of Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive, and it will undermine his position vis-a-vis his constituents."—[Official Report, 18 October 1966; Vol. 734, c. 74.]
In the interests of fairness and justice, I should add that by Third Reading an educative process had taken place and, on behalf of the official Opposition, he said that he had become simply "grudgingly agnostic."

Mr. Lord: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. However, the position taken by the Conservative Opposition at that time was not necessarily a dishonourable one. In a sense, they were anxious about their role and anxious to preserve their responsibility as Members of Parliament. It could be argued that, by accepting the role of the ombudsman, a Member of Parliament's role, load and responsibility are lessened. In a sense, it is easy to look back in the way that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has done today, but I do not believe that the Conservative Opposition necessarily adopted the wrong position at the time.

Dr. Wright: That is a very interesting point which I would love to explore at length.
The system involves major constitutional issues. The system may seem to be fairly dry and dusty, but it was thought to be a major constitutional innovation at the time. Indeed, it was thought to be threatening to the traditional way in which we did things. It was argued that there were traditional ways in which Members of Parliament took up complaints on behalf of constituents. They did that through seeing Ministers, questions and Adjournment debates. It was thought that they were adequate mechanisms and that to introduce an external element, albeit established by the House and filtered through Members of Parliament—a provision included at the outset for that very reason—would somehow be threatening and damaging.
As I have said, we have moved on from there to such an extent that there are ombudsmen everywhere. Everywhere we look we see ombudsmen. Indeed, we have to search around for a collective noun to describe such a galaxy of ombudsmen. My best idea so far is to describe them as a complaint of ombudsmen, but I am sure that other hon. Members can do better than that.
There are public sector schemes like the parliamentary commissioner and the local government ombudsman, and private schemes such as the banking and insurance


ombudsman. We also have mixes or hybrid schemes such as the legal services ombudsman and the building societies ombudsman. There are a variety of schemes.

Mr. Lord: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I should like to take him back to an earlier point. I have just been advised that it is never too late to learn. A report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in the Session 1993–94 contains a letter from Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone in which he says:
I was very critical of the Ombudsman system when it was first introduced. But, in its present form, I think it has justified itself and commands public confidence.

Dr. Wright: As I said, there was an educative process, although in some cases it was a rather prolonged process.
I will argue in a moment that we need to strengthen and extend the system. The point made by the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) is a timely warning. People who might oppose such strengthening and extension now, may come back in 20, 30 or 40 years time and say that such strengthening and extension was right and that it was what we should have done.
Ombudsman schemes have proliferated. We have them here and there are similar schemes abroad. Almost every country has an ombudsman and they come in all shapes and sizes. The other day I heard that there is an ombudsman in Pakistan who sits with a great scoreboard behind him which registers the number of complaints with which he is dealing. He is always into the tens of thousands. As one watches, the scoreboard turns round as new complaints go through the system.
We can see why this great contagion is sweeping the world. The state is very big and citizens are very small. Private corporations are very big, but citizens are very small. Citizens need help and ways to access the system to find redress when they believe that they have been adversely affected.
Sometimes the development and growth of the system is confusing. The Select Committee tried to take a fairly robust view about the use of the term ombudsman. We take a dim view of the fact that, despite our protestations, within the Government there was still as post known as the prisons ombudsman. We also still have an ombudsman appointed by the Government for housing corporations, despite the confusion that is caused. We much prefer the notion of adjudicators and adjudicator schemes such as the Inland Revenue's excellent scheme which members of the Select Committee saw this week.
Several factors distinguish the real article from imitations. First, ombudsmen must be independent. That is absolutely crucial. They must be independent from the system that they supervise and monitor. Secondly, they must be able to enforce their recommendations. Thirdly, they must be comprehensive. They must not deal with just a bit of the issue; they must have full access and jurisdiction. Those are precisely the attributes of our own parliamentary ombudsman scheme.
If possible, ombudsmen should have another attribute—the ability to improve the systems which give rise to complaints in the first place. That has become an important feature of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Ombudsmen must be able not only to deal with individual complaints but to examine the systems and malfunctions which give rise to complaints. Just as

we had the great booklet issued in Whitehall entitled, "The Judge over your Shoulder", to deal with judicial review, it is good that we are to have a booklet entitled, "The Ombudsman in your Files", to make sure that Whitehall knows what maladministration is and how to avoid it, based on the experience of the ombudsman system.
We are dealing with a model system which has been outstandingly successful in enabling citizens—we must never lose sight of the individual dimension—to have their complaints against public organisations and great Departments of state investigated by an Officer of the House who has access to every person and every paper that he needs to investigate, to report, and to have his recommendations implemented. That individual approach is sustained also by the ability to address systems failures.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth rightly mentioned the disability living allowance and a case involving slaughtered poultry when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not want to pay but the ombudsman, in effect, made it do so. We should never forget that the official error concession does justice to every taxpayer in the land when the Inland Revenue makes a mistake. That came directly out of a recommendation by the parliamentary commissioner. We have heard also about the extremely important case of NHS continuing care, which has had a decisive effect on the debate.
We have an impressive institution and an outstanding track record, but we must now strengthen and extend the system, which means again having the arguments that we had in 1966 and 1967 when the original Bill was before the House. Many things that need to be done are mentioned in the Select Committee's comprehensive report on the functions and powers of the ombudsman. We have argued, for example, that we must put the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration into the same constitutional position as the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the House and his funding. In 1967, it was claimed that there would be an exact analogy between the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Select Committee sustaining that post, and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Select Committee sustaining that post. It is a source of neglect and shame that that has not happened. There has been no parliamentary debate on the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration since 1991.
We have recommended that all public bodies need to come under the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. The principle should be that, wherever there is public administration—and thus, by implication, the possibility of public maladministration—the ombudsman's writ should run. We should turn around the legislation to define exclusions and not, as now, merely specify matters that the ombudsman can examine. That would be an extremely important change.
We believe, too, that the ombudsman should have power to initiate investigations. Again, that happens routinely in ombudsman systems elsewhere. It makes no sense to have to wait to receive a complaint when there is conspicuous maladministration. We have an instrument to investigate maladministration and we need to be more interventionist in using it.
The deepest, most important and most delicate territory of all, which takes us back to the foundation experience, is the so-called "MP filter". The need for citizens to reach the ombudsman through the services of a Member of Parliament was built into the system at the outset to meet some early constitutional fears. In Committee, we robustly discussed those matters and a view was arrived at, but the debate will continue. Every organisation which gave its opinion on the matter said that it no longer made sense to enforce a route through Members of Parliament for citizens to reach the ombudsman. It is almost unique and it is no longer sustainable. Indeed, the ombudsman himself no longer believes it to be a sensible arrangement. In the House Magazine of 14 March, he said:
I am amazed that more Members do not find a use for my services in helping their constituents who complain that they have suffered injustice through maladministration.
He feels the constraint of that limitation. He considers that the services that he offers are not universally available because there is dependence on Members of Parliament to access the system.
The National Consumer Council spoke to the Committee. I will not quote its evidence, but it is emphatic. The council said that it simply filters out vast numbers of complaints. If one has to go through such hurdles, it is no wonder the take-up of the system, in international terms, is so restricted. The filter is built in.

Mr. Lord: rose—

Dr. Wright: I can see the hon. Gentleman straining at the leash again.

Mr. Lord: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a long, complex debate. Does he agree that if the "MP filter" did not exist there would almost certainly be a significant change in the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents in relation to problems and complaints?

Dr. Wright: Frankly, in no way would that interfere with my relationship with my constituents. It would simply enable me to point them in an additional direction if they wanted to approach me about it, but they would not require me to do that. We have the anomaly that in relation to the Health Service Commissioner there is direct access. It is absurd to have direct access in the health sector but a filter for other matters. That makes no sense at all.

Mr. Lord: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I will leave him in peace after this intervention. He assumes that many constituents are not getting satisfaction through the existing system. What hard evidence does he have for that?

Dr. Wright: When we consider the size of our population it is striking how few cases come before the British ombudsman. That is why we can talk glowingly about the Rolls-Royce treatment that people receive from the ombudsman. That is the kind of system that we have established. But I am also interested in the Ford Cortinas and the Minis—I want the system to be accessible to everyone. It should not have to accessed through Members of Parliament.
We conducted a survey among Members of Parliament some time ago which received a high rate of return. The wholly depressing finding was that some 45 per cent. of Members of Parliament seldom or never refer cases to the Ombudsman. That is a strikingly high figure. Some 100 Members of the House never use the services of that parliamentary institution, and thus deprive their constituents of a service that was set up for their benefit. It is time that the House looked again at the obstacle course that it put in place in 1967.

Mr. David Nicholson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's interest and experience in this area of public administration. I draw his attention to another filter. Because of the way in which the ombudsman's powers are circumscribed by the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred—which is now 25 years old—the ombudsman is unable to investigate a number of matters which come near to being cases of maladministration. Therefore, constituents are dissatisfied or have to resort to the court process— and the hon. Gentleman and I know what a hazardous and difficult process that is.

Dr. Wright: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. There is no doubt that we must find alternatives to the court system which will enable people to find justice. That is why mediation schemes are being developed in the area of civil justice. It is a growth area. People must be able to seek redress through mechanisms in the public and private sectors for a whole variety of grievances for which they are not able to seek redress through the formal mechanisms of the court system.
The challenge for the House is to examine whether our system is designed for the convenience of Members of Parliament or that of our constituents. I think that the system we have put in place is designed to protect Members of Parliament, and that was the verdict of our survey. On the whole, hon. Members said that they preferred the indirect route to the ombudsman. However, that finding sits alongside evidence about lack of usage by a considerable number of hon. Members, which also involves a denial of access to constituents. It means that the system is designed for the convenience of Members of Parliament and is not allowing citizens access to the ombudsman.

Mr. Lord: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has used phrases such as "for the convenience of Members of Parliament" and "to protect Members of Parliament". I do not see what Members of Parliament have to lose in agreeing with him and allowing him to have his way. Members of Parliament are concerned that their constituents will lose—not that they themselves will lose power, protection or convenience.

Dr. Wright: That is a most interesting argument. I cannot conceive of any means whereby our constituents would lose by directly accessing the ombudsman; they could only gain. They could retain our services—the grievance chasing and righting of wrongs in which we engage every day—but they would have the additional


opportunity to access another system. From the citizen's point of view— if not from that of the Member of Parliament— that is pure gain.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our constituents look to their Members of Parliament as advocates and therefore feel better if their Members of Parliament are prepared to write to the ombudsman in support of their cases?

Dr. Wright: That would not change. Under a new system, Members of Parliament could discuss with constituents whether issues would properly be addressed to the ombudsman, as is already the case with the Health Service Commissioner. Although my constituents do not need to access the Health Service Commissioner through me, I find that they often do so. It is often after discussing the matter that we decide that it would be sensible to consult the Health Service Commissioner. I think that citizens will gain under a new system; I cannot conceive of any loss.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he not missing the most obvious point in the argument? The Member of Parliament filter is an asset to the ombudsman. After all, people do not elect the parliamentary ombudsman; they elect Members of Parliament and we are accountable to them.

Dr. Wright: Before this debate I did not understand why there was so much opposition to the original legislation. Now I am beginning to glimpse it. Hon. Members fear that a doctrine of responsibility is somehow being undermined. I think that the roles of Members of Parliament can only be enhanced under a new system. If we are looking for stronger accountability and responsibility and increased responsiveness by public services to need in the community, we can only gain under a system of direct access.
Several other issues are integral to our reform agenda. We know that the Parliamentary Commissioner is responsible for monitoring the system of open government. It is clear from his preliminary report that the system is not working well. The Commissioner talks about a series of obstacles, as in our previous discussion, through which citizens have to pass to access the open government provisions. There has been an appalling lack of publicity about the system, so it is not surprising that take-up has been low. The charging regime is inconsistent and is excessive in some cases. I am glad that the Select Committee intends to inquire into the operation of the open government code.
The Select Committee has done more than any other forum to reveal how appalling the present national health service complaints system is. It concluded:
The current complaints system in the National Health Service seems designed for the convenience of providers of the service rather than of complainants.
I express regret that so far the Government have not responded to the Wilson Committee report. Everyone who heard the evidence given before the Committee and who is familiar with the report understands that we need urgent reform in that area. I wish that the Government had already advanced some proposals.

Mr. Bowis: The Wilson committee was set up by the Government in response to the sort of messages that we have heard from the Health Service Commissioner and

from the Select Committee. We are taking the issue seriously, and we have been looking carefully at it. It will not be long before my Department comes forward with our response to the Wilson committee.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to the Minister, and I know that Professor Wilson himself has expressed disappointment at the lack of progress in the area.
We have an institution here with a most distinguished record. We have, if I may say so, a holder of the post now who, on any reckoning, is the most distinguished there has ever been. His industry and application are outstanding, and I hope that that will be understood and recognised.
In conclusion—I say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) is looking at me anxiously—the time has come for the success story to be built on. Now is the time to move forward. That was summed up in one sentence from Justice, the organisation responsible for moving the Government on the original system, which said to the Select Committee that the full potential of the ombudsman had "yet to be realised".
Our view is that new legislation is required, but :it is wrong for the Government to suggest that it can be done casually and, they hope, by the private Members' route. As in 1966–1967, it requires a great reforming Administration and a Leader of the House with vigour and imagination—the era of citizens charters deserves no less.

Mr. Michael Lord: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). Although we have different opinions—as became clear during his speech—I have noticed how hard he works, and how keen and involved he is with all that the ombudsman is trying to do. It was interesting to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say this evening.
I welcome the debate and, like the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, I think that it is long overdue. I shall not repeat the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but clearly the role of the ombudsman is moving increasingly towards the centre stage. I am delighted to take part in the debate. I should like to start by saying how much I support the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or ombudsman—a much better title—and all the valuable work done by him and his staff.
I understand that the ombudsman has the power of a High Court judge and, like the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, I think that we are fortunate in having our present ombudsman. Mr. Reid and his staff bring to the task a degree of precision and a clarity of expression, both verbal and written, which make the task of the Committee so much easier. I 'should also like briefly to mention Mr. Reid's counterpart in Northern Ireland, Mrs. McIvor, and to congratulate her on the excellent work that she does there.
Real efforts are now being made on all sides to improve the delivery of services in every area of national life. I welcome that, and also the vital role that the ombudsman is playing in the process.
I shall say a brief word about the Member of Parliament filter, which has been talked about this evening. It is an enormous subject. I am very much in favour of retaining the filter. Arguments can be made for people to have free


access to the ombudsman, but that would bring with it all sorts of problems. It is an easy concept to put over, but the consequences flowing from it would perhaps call for a certain amount of caution.
I believe that the filter system works well. If all 651 hon. Members look after their constituencies in the way that they should and if they are diligent—I am sure that most hon. Members are—the existing system, although perhaps not perfect, might be as good a system as one can have in a democracy. I am not denying the role of the ombudsman, nor that that role should be expanded.
The role of the ombudsman has been described as a "bolt in the armoury" for an hon. Member. It is rather more than that now. It is an office with which we should arm ourselves and use when necessary. But I am concerned about the effect of constituents being able to go directly to the ombudsman.

Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that some constituents in a Labour constituency may prefer not to go to a Labour Member of Parliament—for whatever reason—and that the same might apply in a Conservative constituency? The constituent might then approach a neighbouring Member of Parliament, for whatever reason. That may be already acting as a filter. We would all prefer our constituents to come to us regardless of party, but a filter is starting to be built in, with hon. Members from other constituencies putting cases forward. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the case for a filter at least needs a rather more open mind?

Mr. Lord: I do not know how many cases the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has come across where that situation has applied. Putting to one side the ombudsman's role, that situation might arise quite often when people have problems, but it is not one that I have come across as a Conservative Member. I am not aware that people who vote Labour do not come to me with their problems. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has found that Conservatives do not take their troubles to him. If he has evidence to support that—

Mr. Battle: indicated assent.

Mr. Lord: If so, that justifies the hon. Gentleman's argument to some extent. I am not aware that that is the case.
It is essential that we use the ombudsman properly, as has been described already. The Member of Parliament filter, in my view, may be the best way to go for the time being. We shall return to that argument in the not-too-distant future.
The proliferation of ombudsmen—the subject has been touched on—is something that I am worried about. Our ombudsman was originally a unique institution. It is no longer unique. The growth in the number of ombudsmen of one sort or another is damaging that uniqueness and, as a result, is damaging the ombudsman's effectiveness as well.
I received a note—which was supposed to be helpful—from the National Consumer Council, which was aware of the debate this evening. It referred to ombudsmen here and there, and in one paragraph it said that the
NCC believes that consumers should have direct access to the Parliamentary ombudsman, so bringing this scheme into line with other ombudsman schemes.
The point made earlier was that there has been a massive proliferation of ombudsmen. If the House will forgive the pun, I am coming to the conclusion that if ombudsmen are becoming ten a penny, the coinage will almost certainly be seriously debased.
At the very least, we must ensure that people who call themselves ombudsmen are genuinely independent. They cannot be attached or linked to the organisation that they are seeking to scrutinise, as that would be a total denial of the whole principle. I am anxious about that proliferation, and I must say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the whole Committee—myself certainly, and I suspect the other Committee members—was rather disappointed by the Government's attitude to the problem. The Committee felt that ombudsmen should not be allowed to proliferate in the way that they are, but the Government seem to be rather too laid back about it for my liking.
I shall say a few words about the Health Service Commissioner. I feel, as an hon. Member who served on the Select Committee, that we were uniquely placed to see the cross-section of complaints and problems that came before us. I should like to mention some of the lessons that I learnt from being a member of the Committee.
I should like to preface my remarks about the national health service by acknowledging the great amount of good work that it does. Our Chairman mentioned that the NHS deals with 8 million cases a year. We are guilty of carping if we dwell too long on the complaints about the NHS, but our Committee exists to study such complaints and to lift the blanket to see what is going on underneath. The debate is about complaints.
I agree with other hon. Members that the biggest cause of the problems in the NHS is a lack of proper communications. There is a crying need for a clear line of responsibility from the top to the bottom. Everyone in that chain should be able to communicate with one another, from the chairman right down to the patient. That, sadly, does not always happen for a variety of reasons and the Committee sees what happens when things go wrong.
I know that today is not the time to dwell on specific cases, but this week our Committee considered a case in which it had taken a complainant four and a half years to get satisfaction. When we questioned the witnesses, we were far from convinced that they had learned their lessons from that complaint. I was certainly not convinced that, should another complaint be made to that organisation, it would not take another four and a half years to sort it out. I hope that our questioning of those witnesses, under our excellent chairmanship, was sufficiently precise to leave them in no doubt about our concern not just about the complaint but about their reaction to it.
One of the problems in the NHS is the growing use of jargon. Professionals in the health service are developing their own language; they and their colleagues know what they are talking about, but to outsiders it sometimes sounds like mumbo-jumbo. In Committee, we frequently have to interrupt witnesses in the middle of their answers to ask what a set of initials or a job title means.
Job titles are a problem in themselves. The professionals may understand them, but it difficult for the ordinary mortal to know what is going on. We now have nurse directors, nurse managers and line managers. After one Committee sitting, when I had asked someone about jargon, I was accompanied in the lift down to the Lobby by the policeman who sat at the back of the Room. That officer told me how much he had enjoyed hearing our questions about jargon. He said to me, "Do you know, I've got a line manager now. I used to call him my sergeant." That sums it up. Imagine dashing into a police station and saying, "Please may I see your line manager?" That is the ridiculous state that we have reached.
The health service puts increasing reliance on structures and systems; they are obviously important, but they are no substitute for individual responsibility. There is little point in sounding efficient if one acts inefficiently.
I should like to make a special plea on behalf of matrons, which will come as no surprise to some of my colleagues on the Committee. In 1989, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the return of matrons, which attracted 129 signatures. In the same year, I also tabled an oral question asking that matrons be brought back, which was answered by the then Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). His reply was rather facile:
I recall that that paragon was usually played by Peggy Mount in the films. However, there is nothing to prevent a hospital that is seduced by my hon. Friend's arguments from calling its senior nurse manager a matron, as some hospitals do.
I was not impressed by that response and nor, I am glad to say, was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who said in a supplementary question:
I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that it does not matter a row of beans who played the part of the matron in a film. Many people think that almost the biggest mistake ever made in the National Health Service was to get rid of the matron."—[Official Report, 21 February 1989; Vol.164, c. 822.]
In 1990, following the snatch of a baby from one of our London hospitals, the Evening Standard carried an article stating:
Once the title of Matron spelt discipline and respect in hospital life. Now it has been replaced by a management number, and it is the patients who suffer".
My heart lifted when, in 1991, the Nursing Times reported:
Guy's Hospital in London has reinstated the title of Matron.
A groundswell of public opinion has brought back the matron. More formally described as director of nursing at Guy's Hospital, London.
According to Lewisham and North Southwark Community Health Council, the health watchdog which covers Guy's, the return of matron is one of the most frequent demands from local patients complaining about services.
Assistant secretary Mick Rolfe says the fastest growing area of complaint to the CHC is about attitudes of nursing staff. Those complaining see the demise of the matron figure as one of the root causes of their concern.

I have gone on at some length about matrons, with the tolerance of the House, and I hope that if the Minister is listening carefully, he will take on board my remarks. I am beginning to think that perhaps we shall have to go backwards for progress. I know that that is a contradiction, but the House knows what I mean. I hope that the Minister will consider not just acquiescing but recommending to hospitals that they seriously consider reinstating the matron wherever possible.
The Chairman of our Committee repeated what one of our witnesses said about complaints being jewels to be treasured. We all know what that means, because complaints should not necessarily be horrifying to us. Do hon. Members believe, however, that patients will complain about the service that they receive at the time when they are undergoing treatment? I have serious doubts about that for all the obvious reasons. They may complain afterwards, but then, of course, it is too late.
To complain about something when one is under treatment is different from complaining about anything else. One can take back a shirt to Marks and Spencer and exchange it for another one, or two, or get one's money back. If one has a complaint about the Inland Revenue, it is possible that financial restitution will be made later on. The health service is different and we must come to terms with that dilemma. What is needed is a cultural change within our hospitals.
In a recent case before our Committee, we were told how a relative of a patient sat outside the ward for a number of hours while people walked to and fro, around her; generally ignoring her. That person seemed to be no one's responsibility. That would not happen in a bank, building society or retail shop. Someone would come up and say, "What do you want? Can I help you?" We need that culture in the health service. I know that it is difficult to create that. There are, for example, all sorts of historical reasons for the patient-doctor-nurse relationship. We need to foster that culture, because patients will not complain while they are receiving treatment.
It is particularly difficult to gain redress in the health service because clinicians and medical practitioners of one kind and another sometimes find it extremely difficult to admit fault and to apologise—to do what the Committee would like them to do—because they are anxious that that admission might impact on future litigation or legal problems.
We must resolve that, otherwise it will damage the whole system. We may have to consider the possibility of no-fault compensation, which exists in other countries.
On complaints, we do not want simply to build a huge complaints industry, otherwise the service will not improve because the person delivering it will be aware that the recipient can complain if he does not like it. Ultimately, we need the service to improve and complaints to reduce.
The task of the ombudsman and our Select Committee is to make all those involved in delivering the service conscious of their impact on people's lives. As our Chairman has already pointed out, justice delayed is justice denied, and the Committee is aware of that fact. A week or month's delay in receiving a form or letter may not mean a great deal to officers dealing with a matter but it means an awful lot to a person with a problem who goes to the letter box every morning waiting for that letter or form to arrive.
I am privileged to belong to the Committee and thoroughly enjoy its work. I have said how well I think of Mr. Reid and all his staff, and I look forward to him and his organisation playing a greater part in those matters as time goes by.

Mr. Mike Watson: I, too, welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to discuss the role and activity of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner—or "ombudsmen", as the Committee secured the right for them to be called. I am all for demystifying Government jargon in whatever form it appears, and that is an important step forward.
As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, it has taken 11 months—since the publication of the report on the powers and jurisdiction of the ombudsman—for time to be found to debate this report in the House. That may be apposite, as it simply happens to be midway between the average amount of time taken to deal with complaints by the health service ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman. The Committee has urged the ombudsmen to achieve an average of nine months, and they are working towards that. I should be happy to settle for a 12-month gap between debates in the House on issues relating to the ombudsmen, provided that we had such a debate annually.
In their response to the report, the Government rejected that suggestion, saying that they could not find time to debate the matter on a regular basis. That is regrettable because the issues that come before the ombudsmen need to be openly debated regularly as they are increasing not just in number but in importance. The number has increased consistently in the past three and a half years since the House last had an opportunity to consider the ombudsmen's reports.

Mr. Deva: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government have acknowledged the importance of the reports and provided time for them to be debated and that, because they have written an important report, we are now debating them?

Mr. Watson: Yes, I accept that, although I suspect that we are having this debate simply because of the special report that has been produced. It is three and a half years since the last debate and we should debate the ombudsmen's work and the Select Committee's scrutiny of their work annually, not just when a report is produced.
I do not wish to cite a list of figures, but the number of cases being referred to the parliamentary ombudsman or directly to the health service ombudsman has increased in recent years. The most revealing figure is that, in the part of the current year for which figures are so far available, the parliamentary ombudsman's cases have increased by 31 per cent. and the health service ombudsman's cases by 34 per cent. Those figures are not just increasing but are increasing apace, which emphasises the need for more time to be given to debating the work involved in the House.
One reason for the increase in complaints is the current climate of complaint, which may not have existed five years ago. I fully recognise that that is largely due to the

fact that the Government have introduced citizens charters during that period. Furthermore, the White Paper on open government published in 1993 led to the introduction of a code of practice on access to official information, which has also opened up many other avenues for individuals to highlight issues or events that concern them. That underlines the fact that we need more time to deal with those issues.
Interestingly, just last month the ombudsman published the first of his reports relating to open government—an area that will be of increasing concern to both him and the Select Committee.

Mr. Deva: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watson: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but, to allow as much time as possible for others to participate in the debate, I should like to continue uninterrupted afterwards.

Mr. Deva: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the citizens charters are an extremely good measure?

Mr. Watson: They are a potentially good measure, but they are not fully utilised and contain a lot of padding and window dressing. I am prepared to accept that the intent is well meant.

Mr. Ian McCartney: We made the initial suggestion.
Mr. Watson: My hon. Friend points out that citizens charters were originally a Labour suggestion. That is indeed so, but there is a long way to go before they fulfil their potential.
The parliamentary ombudsman's reports reveal many of the concerns of ordinary men and women and their ability to articulate those concerns. They also reveal the effectiveness of the ombudsman's work in securing redress and of administrative reform in areas where it is shown to be lacking. Anyone who cares to read the reports will see that numerous examples are given. I particularly welcome the ombudsman's willingness to produce those special reports, which are a relatively recent innovation. For example, the parliamentary ombudsman's fourth report in the 1992–93 Session on compensation to farmers for slaughtered poultry, which was mentioned earlier in the debate, catalogues a succession of errors by the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The report not only succeeded in securing the redress that otherwise would not have been open to farmers but acted as a shot across the bows to other Departments to show them that they could not act with the impunity with which they believed they could act in the past. The general public now have greater expectations, and the Select Committee has greater expectations that those matters will be brought into the public domain.
A second example of that type appeared in the form of the parliamentary ombudsman's sixth report in the same year, which related to delays in handling disability living allowance cases. That was an amazing case, as it followed the most appalling bureaucratic bungles, and the system virtually ground to a halt. Many hon. Members simply swamped the ombudsman with complaints on behalf of constituents, many of whom were in a distraught state and some of whom were in desperate financial straits through no fault of their own. Eventually, the ombudsman ensured that those who were hardest hit received redress. Sadly,


however, the lessons that should have been learned by the Department of Social Security—the Minister's incompetence reached breathtaking levels—have not been learned if what we now hear in relation to the Child Support Agency, details of which are just beginning to emerge, are to be believed.
I note that the ombudsman is to report to the Committee in January on the Child Support Agency. He has recently had to refuse to accept complaints by some hon. Members on behalf of their constituents simply because, if he accepted more, they would slow down his current investigations. Cases not investigated in that way will benefit from any decision at which he arrives, but that fact highlights the extent of the problem and the fact that lessons are not necessarily learnt even if they are particularly forcefully drawn to Departments' attention.
Those special reports, therefore, have a special function which I hope the ombudsman will use more in future if the need arises.
I believe that the effectiveness of the ombudsman in his role is strengthened—as he has said—by the role that the Select Committee plays in helping to highlight some of the cases that come to the ombudsman, and which he places in his reports. Cabinet Ministers and departmental Permanent Secretaries appear before us, and we subject them to rigorous questioning. That further serves to ensure that those Government Departments are fully aware that maladministration will not be tolerated, and that we remain willing to highlight maladministration wherever and whenever it appears.
As a result of the report to which I referred earlier, Departments in which maladministration has been shown to have occurred, and which has been highlighted to them, must now publish a report to the ombudsman describing how the maladministration has been rectified to ensure that there is no repetition.
The role and the importance of the Select Committee, linked with the role of the ombudsman, should not be underestimated. It has grown considerably in weight and stature in recent years. In the period during which I have been involved, the Committee's operations have become more effective and more public than was hitherto the case—although I claim no personal credit for that.
The Committee spent all last year taking evidence for the report from a wide range of organisations and individuals. Many Members of Parliament contributed to the survey, to which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred earlier. We made 36 recommendations, some of which the Government have accepted. I especially regret the fact that they have not accepted two of the recommendations.
One of those recommendations concerns the right of the ombudsman to initiate investigations after the Committee has raised a matter formally with him. That does not mean that the ombudsman does not retain his right to decline to follow up certain investigations, but I believe that the Government have been unduly cautious by rejecting that proposal, simply stating in their response:
Citizens will normally complain where alleged maladministration occurs.
That may be so, but there may well be reasons, as we heard in the exchange between hon. Members earlier, why individuals choose not to bring complaints. For instance, they may not be aware of their right to complain. It is

important that that door is left open. I hope that the Committee will return to that recommendation some time, because I do not believe that the Government's case is strong, and if we pushed again on that subject we could easily assemble a case that would convince the Government that the powers of the Committee—indeed, the powers of the ombudsman—should be increased in terms of such initiation.
Secondly, as a Scot, I find it not simply an anomaly but unacceptable that administrative acts of court staff in Scotland lie outside the ombudsman's role. I know that that exclusion arises from the different constitutional position in Scotland, where court staff are not appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who is a Minister, but by the Lord President of the Court of Session. None the less, as a Scot and on behalf of my constituents and those of other hon. Members from north of the border, I find it unacceptable for Scots to be denied a right granted to their fellow citizens in England and Wales. No doubt the Committee will return to that issue, because it is one about which we felt strongly, and argued vigorously in our report. I shall also pursue that through other means, directly with Ministers, but it is a clear anomaly that must be tackled.
I have been a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for five years, which I have found rewarding and stimulating. I have gained much from it and I hope that I have made a contribution to the Committee. Those remarks preface my decision to tender my resignation from the Committee, which I shall do in the next few days to the Chairman. That is not for any reason other than that I have been appointed to another Committee of the House and shall shortly take up those duties, and find it impossible to combine the two. I believe that the experience that I have gained in the Committee has been valuable and will stand me in good stead on the Committee to which I am moving.
I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Committee, regardless of party divisions. It has been a good Committee with which to be involved. We have undertaken serious work in a sometimes lighthearted, but never anything other than effective, manner, and I have especially appreciated the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who has made meetings enjoyable but has been forceful when putting witnesses under the spotlight.
In passing, I pay tribute to the commissioner, Mr. William Reid, whom I am pleased to see in the Strangers Gallery, and Mr. John Avery and Mr. Richard Oswald, his assistants. I have always found their contributions essential to the efficient working of the Committee and I have already paid tribute to the work that the commissioner and his staff do. There are several staff, and I am glad to note that, with almost a doubling of the resources of the commissioner's office, the number will grow in the near future. The role that they play should not be underestimated.
It would be remiss of me, in leaving the Committee, not to pay tribute to the Clerk to the Committee. It was Mr. Colin Lee in my earlier years on the Committee; it is now Mr. Yusef Azad. No Select Committee can work without an efficient Clerk, and I am sure that there is no more efficient Clerk in the House than Mr. Azad.
I wish the Committee and the hon. Members who continue to serve on it well. They have an important task ahead of them. Part of that is to convince the Government that due weight must be given to the Committee, its members and the job that they do. Part of that, to repeat an earlier remark, is to ensure regular debates in the House on the working of the Committee, and I very much hope that that will become a feature in the not too distant future.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I begin by associating myself with remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), especially with his comments about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the excellent work that he does, and about the marvellous work done by our Clerk of the Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
I shall miss the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central in our deliberations. In the comparatively shorter time in which I have been a member of the Select Committee, I have been enormously impressed by the way in which the Committee tackles many extremely complex and often detailed issues that the commissioner brings before it, and by the way in which the commissioner and his team examine and dissect extremely complicated cases, often with great precision, so that the individual can be assured that someone is standing up for him against the system.
I shall dwell on that aspect briefly, because frequently, in our deliberations in the House, we talk about the way in which the Government or the Executive work. I would like to associate myself with remarks made by one or two of the earlier speakers, who said that one of the real values of the work done by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is that he can tilt against windmills on behalf of the individual. It is a question of the individual against the system, particularly where the system can be proved to have gone wrong or to have treated the individual wrongly. In that respect, I want to discuss the role of the ombudsman and my belief that the House should use his services more often and debate his reports with rather more seriousness and regularity.
When the Committee, as we have already heard, was first thought of and introduced in the House, it was with the idea that it would, in many ways, mirror the work done by the Public Accounts Committee on the Comptroller and Auditor General. Looking back, I would have supported that strongly because if the House regularly discusses the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee, whose primary duty is to ensure that money is correctly spent by the Executive, surely it is the duty of the House to treat with equal seriousness the work of the ombudsman and the Select Committee, who examine how the money is spent on the services that we offer.
The quality of the service that we offer is surely, to the citizens who elect us, just as important as the way in which we spend the money to pay for those services and for that Administration. I ask the Government, particularly the Leader of the House, to look again at the issue so that

the whole subject can be more regularly debated, if not for a whole day, perhaps half a day, as and when reports are presented to the House.
When the Government are concerned about the quality of services, whether through the citizens charter or the individual charters—for the health service or for anything else—it would send the wrong signal if we did not look seriously at the work of the ombudsman and his recommendations where services are proven to have fallen down. To be concerned only about the money that goes to pay for them would be remiss. I am sure that we would do our electors and the reputation of the House some good if we looked rather more carefully at that subject.
Like others in the debate, I strongly believe that the role and task of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is most valuable precisely because, in a non-political fashion, the PCA brings to the attention of the Executive, by whatever possible political persuasion, complaints and examples of maladministration in services. Those examples can and do serve to improve the quality of those services and the Administration, provided that the PCA's reports are read and acted upon.
If the House debated the reports more regularly, it is more likely that they would be acted upon, because Ministers would be present to respond to them. I happen to believe that Ministers and politicians generally are too ready to take upon themselves the task of apportioning the defence of the indefensible. When things go wrong in an Administration or in Government service, a Minister will frequently be held by others to be immediately responsible or he or she will be encouraged to be extremely defensive on behalf of the Administration which he happens to represent.
Where complaints are made and upheld by the ombudsman, there is a good argument for a Minister or member of the Executive of whatever political persuasion to be able to say, "Yes, we see that there has been an error. We are glad to find that the error has been rectified but, in particular, these are the measures that we are now able to set before the House to show that we have listened and acted carefully on the ombudsman's advice."
I also believe that the ombudsman's work greatly enhances the consistency between Departments of treatment of complainants and redress where the system and the service concerned has fallen down. We surely should be concerned that, in whatever area of Government administration, our electorate is treated equitably and fairly as between one Department and another.
I therefore join the people who argue for the ombudsman's role and position to be extended to every sector of public administration. Furthermore, his role should be extended to Government-funded agencies and, dare I suggest, sometimes to the quangos through which Government money passes. It is within the brief of the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine how money is spent, so it is surely right that the role and remit of the ombudsman should include ensuring that quangos and agencies perform their task in a satisfactory fashion and that, if a complaint over maladministration arises, proper redress is given and citizens feel that someone can take up their case effectively and, where appropriate, obtain redress for them. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider again the role and remit of the ombudsman and that time will be made available in Parliament to debate his work.

Mr. John Battle: I hope that hon. Members who want to take part in the debate, especially those who are or who have been members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to welcome tonight's debates. We need to debate the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioners periodically on the Floor of the House and in the context of the Select Committee's work, which was admirably described by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who chairs that Committee.
We need to raise the profile of the parliamentary commissioner—dare I emphasise the word parliamentary—to reaffirm that he is directly responsibility to Parliament and has a particular relationship with Members of Parliament as part of the accountability of our democracy. Let us have an annual debate and not leave it to others to initiate, as has been suggested, a discussion of the ombudsman in a private Member's Bill debate or Adjournment debate, when hon. Members usually raise individual cases.
It is perhaps appropriate that this debate follows immediately on the one on the workings of the Child Support Agency. More specifically, the debate is overdue. Last year, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration conducted its most far-reaching inquiry into the work, powers and jurisdiction of the ombudsman since the establishment of the post in 1967. The inquiry's report was published last January with 36 recommendations, six to the commissioner and 30 to the Government. The Government reply to the recommendations was published in a report 5 July. Today, we have had the follow-up letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster dealing—helpfully I would say—with a few of the outstanding recommendations.
In the same period since 1991, the Government have published a White Paper on open government with a code of guidance to access to information. In July 1991, the White Paper on the citizens charter was published. Since then, some 40 charters have been published. It is tempting to add that we shall soon need a charters charter to find our way around them. Nor should the citizens charter be regarded as a substitute or replacement for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Rather, as he himself insisted in his recent annual reports, the charters
should let people know how they can appeal to the Ombudsman via their Member of Parliament if they feel the administration has let them down, treated them unfairly, inefficiently or"—
I note in his most recent report—
discourteously, with rudeness, with an unwillingness to treat the complainant as a person with rights and with a refusal to answer reasonable questions.

The emphasis on rudeness, courtesy and decent answering of questions suggests that sometimes our exchanges at Question Time could merit a referral to the ombudsman.

Mr. McCartney: They merit it all the time.

Mr. Battle: As my hon. Friend suggests, it should happen all the time.
Each month, new bodies are added to the parliamentary commissioner's jurisdiction—most recently the urban development corporations, the director of passenger freight rail franchising, the rail regulator and, more topically, the Office of the National Lottery.
I hope that the Minister will reply to this particular point. Rather than change the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to add every new body, would it not be better to draft the scope of the parliament commissioner's jurisdiction so that everything is included, unless it is explicitly and specifically excluded from his purview?
I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will consider that point, because, in the table of respondents to the Select Committee questionnaire to hon. Members, it is obvious that between hon. Members elected in 1983 and those elected after 1983 there has been a decline in understanding the range of the commissioner's jurisdiction. In other words, hon. Members are less clear which bodies fall within his aegis. That should be spelled out in more detail. It would be helpful if the Minister could give a positive reply. Let us assume that everything is in and that only that which is specified is excluded. As the parliamentary commissioner mentions in his annual report, sometimes it is not even clear to the commissioner himself whether a new body is included. That needs to be clarified.
The new agencies are generating a huge increase in the parliamentary commissioner's workload. It was up by 25 to 30 per cent. this year. The Child Support Agency has led to an enormous number of complaints, and, as other hon. Members have said, in the future it will be subject to a special report. Social security is still a major subject of inquiries and in the past 10 years the Government have replaced the non-contributory invalidity pensions with the severe disablement allowance, the mobility allowance and attendance allowance with the disabled living allowance, supplementary benefit with income support, family income support with family credit and special needs allowances with direct payments from the social fund. That overhaul of the social security system has inevitably led to confusion, muddle and maladministration.
The Department of Social Security continues to account for the most significant part of the commissioner's work load. It accounted for 46 per cent.—nearly half the work load—in 1993. In one of his special reports published this year on the delays in handling disability allowance claims, the Department of Social Security's glaring shortcomings when introducing the new disability living allowance were revealed. On page 2 of his annual report the parliamentary commissioner said:
The result was that, despite the Department's best intentions, thousands of disabled claimants found themselves for many months deprived of benefit.
The Department eventually had to pay nearly £500,000 in compensation to some 30,000 claimants as a result of that special report.
On page 3 of his annual report, published in March this year, the commissioner writes:
It is a source of great concern that my investigations reveal one Department repeating unnecessarily another Department's errors. I therefore suggest to the Select Committee that the Office of Public Service and Science could and should be doing more to disseminate among Government Departments the practical lessons distilled from my reports.
In other words, there needs to be some interdepartmental co-operation and some sharing of the information in the reports. Dare I say, there needs to be some joined-up thinking between Departments to ensure that they do not unnecessarily repeat errors and that they improve systems so as to identify problems clearly, and to recognise that, when an individual case is analysed, it can sometimes reveal what we might call a structural fault throughout the whole system, which needs to be tackled.
As more and more people become aware of the existence and the role of the commissioner, I predict that his workload will continue to increase rapidly. From 1989 to 1993 there was an increase of 46 per cent. in complaints referred. The number of complaints accepted has risen by 17 per cent. and the final reports issued increased by 12 per cent. I believe that our constituents should know who the ombudsman is. It is to be regretted that the term of ombudsman has been unhelpfully extended elsewhere, including into the Department of Environment and the Home Office. Avoiding confusion about the role, powers and jurisdiction of the ombudsman should be a primary objective. It is an objective that I know that the Select Committee has set itself, and it should be supported in the House.
I know that the parliamentary commissioner, Mr. Reid, believes that the public ought to be able to go direct to him—the subject of the debate across the Floor of the House tonight—without going through the Member of Parliament filter. Currently, a member of the public approaches the commissioner through a Member of the House of Commons. I know that the Select Committee also rejected that approach and I shall comment briefly on the relationship between Members of Parliament, their constituencies and the parliamentary commissioner.
One of the most valuable elements in our system of parliamentary democracy, flawed though it may be, is that direct constituency-member link between Members of Parliament and the specific geographical areas that they represent. Members of Parliament cannot be only names on lists, carried on the shoulders of others, nor can they be merely talking heads on television and radio or photographs in the paper; at once removed from direct contact with our constituents. That is why we hold advice surgeries, that is why we take on cases individually and have, in some instances, large case loads. I am currently in contact with about 2,500 people. In this age of politics—dare I say—as media spectacle, whether in the theatre of this Chamber, or in the stunts and set pieces outside, it is vital to our democracy that our constituents can buttonhole us; take us aside by the elbow and talk to us directly.
If the work of Members of Parliament can be roughly defined and described as making laws and budgets, that direct access to constituents is important as it often means that our constituents find out quicker than we do the detailed impact of our legislative decisions. They realise

before we do, sitting here, the impact of our decisions. In a sense, those who pay the price can usually do the arithmetic. Evidence and information in the questionnaire given to the Select Committee showed that referrals via Members of Parliament were increasingly complainant-led. So, in a sense, Members of Parliament were not acting as a filter, they were passing more and more complaints straight on. People present their Member of Parliament with, as it were, a window on the workings of a particular Department and the commissioner provides the means for a parliamentary check on the systems and the structures without recourse to expensive, private litigation.
In the absence of a written constitution, electors in our parliamentary democracy have two basic rights. One of them, I gather, is to be able to go right into Central Lobby to try to lobby their parliamentary representative. The other is to sign a properly presented and properly addressed petition which can come before the House. Therefore, the "MP filter" is another key means of ensuring that, as legislators, our feet are firmly on the ground. It is of value to Members of Parliament to know what our constituents think of the impact of our decisions.
The powers of the commissioner are, of course, subject to the scrutiny of the Select Committee and accountable, through that Committee, directly to this Parliament. The arrangement depends basically on there being a good relationship between the commissioner and the Select Committee. When there is a good relationship, as I understand there is currently, it can mean, as at present, that the commissioner can and does take the initiative from the recommendations of the Committee. It can be a rather more fluid two-way process than has sometimes been suggested in discussing the "MP filter". The role of the Committee is to strengthen the accountability of the administrative bureaucracy within our parliamentary system through the role of the commissioner.
We need clarification of the whole sector of—what is the new term?—contractual and commercial matters. A change is beginning in the interface between the public and the private as services are contracted out. In practice, that means that the role of the commissioner is becoming less distinct. When the commissioner cannot touch matters relating to contractual and commercial relationships, they may well be referred to the courts; but we need to consider the way in which a whole sphere of Government policy is regularly changing that interface between public and private.
Urban development corporations provide an example. When can the commissioner intervene in regard to decisions that are seen to concern land that is purchased, or otherwise, and members of the public may wish to re-examine the work that has been done? The increasing blurring of the boundary between public and private is likely to generate future complaints, and more work for the commissioner. We need to be clearer about what is within his reach and what is outside it.
Members of Parliament are, in a sense, ombudsmen in their own right. I sometimes think that we are now the last resort for many of our constituents: people bring us problems connected with housing, social security, tax and legal matters such as disputes with neighbours. They approach us not as lobbyists, but because they feel that they cannot "get through" in any other way. They need someone to listen patiently and openly, to take them seriously and to represent them genuinely.
In that sense, we Members of Parliament are already mini-ombudsmen; in that sense we are genuine filters. Those who suggest that our job is done only in this place neglect half the work that we are elected to do. Obviously, the work that we do so patiently in our constituencies is not glamorous and does not attract media attention; nor should it, in my view. But our letters and advice surgeries are the bread and butter of our work as public representatives, and the role of the parliamentary commissioner can reinforce it.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Surely one of the great advantages of insisting that Members of Parliament are approached first is that they can take up an issue as a Minister's case. That ensures that the matter is dealt with at a higher level in the Department concerned. If that filter were not available, far more constituents would go directly to the ombudsman and cases that are currently resolved might not be.

Mr. Battle: I entirely agree. I think we should consider not just whether a person can send a letter directly, but the two-way process that also benefits Members of Parliament, through our inside access to the Administration.
The Government have responded to reports from the Select Committee with, for instance, today's letter about the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Regrettably, the same cannot be said in regard to the work of the health service ombudsman, although the Minister has suggested that the Department will reply before long. The Government's response is overdue: we need replies to the Select Committee's original recommendations. The review carried out by Professor Alan Wilson of Leeds university published its findings in May, and was followed in July by the Select Committee's fifth report. We are now in December. I wish to draw particular attention to the Committee's recommendation that states:
We consider it preferable for the two Offices of Parliamentary Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman to continue to be held by the same person".
In its reply, the Department stated:
The Government agrees that there should be no change for the present. This subject may need to be revisited at a later date when the extent of the work arising from the Open Government White Paper and the report by Professor Wilson on the Review of the NHS Complaints Procedure is known.
Will the Minister state clearly that there will be a reply and, what is more, that we can debate it on the Floor of the House? That is necessary because there has been a significant increase in the number of complaints received by the commissioner.
Between 1989 and 1993, there was an increase of 74 per cent. in the number of people turning to the health commissioner. In 1992, 1,227 complaints were received and last year 1,384 were received, an increase of 13 per cent. The number of new investigations begun last year was up 24 per cent. on the year before.
Again, the changing interface between public and private is key to the changing landscape. As a result, the clinical administrative, definitional split is shifting. We are now under new regimes of NHS trusts and GP fundholders in which, speaking metaphorically, the knife could be wielded by an accountant as much as by a surgeon. The ground is shifting and we need to respond urgently to that shift in the context of the work, role and jurisdiction of the commissioner.
Similarly, if the health ombudsman is to be, as Select Committee recommendation 127 proposes
the apex of any unified NHS complaints system that may be introduced",
the role of health staff raising complaints with the health ombudsman on behalf of patients, which they can do, should be protected. They should not be pushed into the background as a form of unprofessional practice or worse, as happened recently, when staff in fear were reduced to appearing as silhouettes on television because they were too scared to be identified when speaking openly. That directly contradicts the Government's positive response to recommendations 23, 31 and 32 of the Select Committee's report.
The health commissioner's report should not only deal with individual grievances but be part of a setting of standards and supervision within the NHS. The alternative would be litigation which I believe that most, if not all, of us would deeply regret. The role of the health commissioner is to provide a safety valve. We urgently need a positive response to the Select Committee's proposals on the health commissioner and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
There were some recommendations that the Government said would be implemented
as soon as the legislative opportunity arises".
In the light of the Government's legislative programme, I hope that the coming months will provide that opportunity, which should be grasped quickly—let us get on with it and get it out of the way.
It is gratifying to read in the response to the Select Committee's questionnaire that a consistently high level of hon. Members—75 per cent.—are either "very" or "quite" satisfied with the result of investigations. That is a compliment to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Mr. Reid, and his staff, to standards in public life and, in particular, to the particular nature of our parliamentary democracy.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is an important, although relatively new, institution and we should continue to seek ways to enhance the commissioner's role, regarding it as a means to strengthen not only democratic accountability but the political institutions of our particular style of constituency-based democracy. In other words, greater awareness of the role, powers and work of the commissioner could go some way to restoring faith in the process of politics in our society.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
Today's debate has been wide ranging, but, in the few minutes available to me, I shall try to cast the net even wider and consider the changing circumstances facing our parliamentary democracy as we go towards the millennium.
The work of the Select Committee is now at the forefront of the work on the citizens charter and of the work that we are doing for our electors on consumers' rights and citizens' expectations of the services that they


obtain from the state. I am especially concerned to encourage the Government to consider recommendations 18 and 20 of the Select Committee report. May I be bold enough to say that the work of the ombudsman and of the Select Committee represents one of the most important institutions of our parliamentary democracy.
The instruments of governance and legislation, and our parliamentary procedures, were fashioned and honed in a different age, when the electorate consisted of people who were less well informed and less aware of their rights; sometimes, they saw the state and its agencies as their masters rather than as their servants. In 1979, when the Conservative Administration was elected to power, we said, "We want to set the people free." And we have, indeed, set the people free.
Today, much has changed; the electorate are as well informed about current issues as any Member of this august House and the people are as aware of their rights—if not, sometimes, of their duties—as any Member of the House. Our electorate and our citizens see an equal partnership between themselves and the providers of services from the Government, the state and their agencies.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a signal contribution to promoting an equal partnership between the state and its citizens through the introduction of the citizens charter, which has been a success. The charter has increased the awareness of the providers of services that their primary duty is to their clients, the citizens of this country, and not to the institutions that employ them. The consumers are supreme, and have every right to be so.
When the citizens charter, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote the foreword, was launched in July 1992, it said:
Through the Citizen's Charter the Government is now determined to drive reforms further into the core of the public services, extending the benefits of choice, competition, and commitment to service more widely.
The range of mechanisms in the citizens charter covers, inter alia,
published performance targets—local and national; comprehensive publication of information on standards achieved; more effective complaints procedures; tougher and more independent inspectorates".
It is therefore fundamental that the citizens charter provides that all services, including those provided by local authorities, should have clear, well-publicised complaints procedures.
I had the privilege of serving on the National Consumer Council for six years before I entered Parliament, and during that time it developed what are now well-established consumer criteria. In brief, that phrase describes the importance of information, access, representation, redress, compensation and value for money.
Having set the scene, my central concern is to consider the future. Twenty years after establishing the consumer movement, as we now know it, we have in place the citizens charter. The next 20 years will herald more wide-ranging revolutions that will affect all our institutions. We have part of that today in the information technology revolution. Tomorrow, we expect the multi-media revolution. Those two are great harbingers of

the way in which our parliamentary democracy will work, and the role of the ombudsman will be pivotal to the changes to come.
The information technology revolution and the multi-media revolution will increase exponentially public awareness of the issues and problems that confront citizens. Citizens will no longer be passive recipients of news; they will be news makers in real time. The entire nation will be exposed to any problem of maladministration, and the complainants will participate in multi-media news events beamed to each home. The audience will be asked to comment from home and to recommend to the nation at large remedies and actions to correct, redress and compensate for the maladministration.
In short, everything that happens to anyone will be accessible to the entire nation. No longer will it merely be a chat across the garden wall when Mrs. Smith says to Mrs. Jones that she went to the local hospital and was not treated properly, or Mr. Jones says to Mr. Smith in the pub that the ambulance that was called to take him to hospital was 20 minutes late.
After the multi-media revolution, everyone in a town or city will know everything that happens and, more importantly, everyone will express his or her own views and opinions to everyone else from home to home. An information time bomb is waiting to go off. As elected representatives of the people, are we equipped here to meet the challenges of the future using the rather archaic instruments and procedures that we have inherited from the 18th and 19th centuries? Are we equipped to maintain a force of representative and accountable democracy and a partnership of trust with our electors?
If the answer to that question is no, we must change the way we do things so that we are seen to be effective, efficient, accountable and competent to deal with people's everyday problems. That is why today's debate is so important and it is why I believe that the Government should accept, as only a first step in a long series of steps, all the recommendations in the Select Committee report which was published on 14 July.
In particular, I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to recommendation 20 which, as he knows, states:
We recommend that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be amended so as to specify exclusions rather than inclusions to the Parliamentary Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that the Government will consider that very carefully. Having looked at it very carefully, is he ready to make a statement about it?
I congratulate the Government on accepting outright 20 of the 36 recommendations in our report. I acknowledge my gratitude for the fact that the Government have promised to consider a further six of our recommendations carefully. I believe that recommendations 18 and 20 are very important indeed.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) for allowing me a few minutes to take part in this debate. I also welcome the fact that the debate is taking place. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to have participated, for the past 18 months,


on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The work has been very worth while and I hope to continue it.
I particularly welcome my involvement with the parliamentary commissioner, because his predecessor, Sir Anthony Barrowclough, is a constituent of mine who lives in Winsford. About a year ago, I made a short film for BBC2 about agencies that help Members of Parliament to do their job. I chose Sir Anthony as an example of the ombudsman and I chose the local Taunton citizens advice bureau which also carries out work which is very much adjacent to that of a Member of Parliament's. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the present ombudsman and his staff for their work which helps us greatly in our work on the Select Committee.
There has been much debate about the "MP filter". I strongly support, and will do so until there is decisive evidence to the contrary, the continuing of the "MP filter". I do not believe that there is evidence of specific unsatisfied demand for the services of the ombudsman resulting from the "MP filter".
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that a dissatisfied constituent whose Member will not take up a case can write to the Chairman of the Select Committee or take the matter up with a neighbouring Member, possibly a Member of that person's own political disposition. However, I would deprecate any departure from the principle in our constitution that all Members of Parliament represent their constituents, whatever their views.
I made the point in Select Committee that the work of the Health Service Commissioner should be more specifically related to Members' responsibilities and the constituencies. The reports of cases by the Health Service Commissioner should be made available to hon. Members so that they know what is happening and what is going wrong with the health service in their constituencies. At election time, it is the Member of Parliament who is responsible for the success or deficiencies of the local health service.
My second point was referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). It relates to the frustrations that arise—I have personal experience of them—from the present restrictions on the jurisdiction of the commissioner.
I commend also the recommendation by the National Consumer Council that the parliamentary ombudsman should be able to investigate complaints involving contractual or commercial matters. A constituent, who seemed to be very dissatisfied with the service from a Department, has been unable to secure redress, despite my efforts to secure an investigation by the commissioner. He deemed what happened—I am sure that he was correct to do so—to result from a contractual relationship that my constituent had made. That is unfortunate. The NCC points out that, with the Government having contracted out a considerable proportion of their work to private companies or next steps agencies, it would be appropriate to extend the ombudsman's role to cover those aspects of public administration.
There might be other examples—perhaps the Select Committee should examine them—of present restrictions on the powers of the ombudsman, even when the constituent has made his case and the Member has put it to the ombudsman, causing frustration because he is not able to investigate successfully and effectively.
My third point relates to the Health Service Commissioner. There is immense potential for good. Despite the fact that constituents are able to refer cases direct to the Health Service Commissioner—there is no "MP filter—I am certain that there is great unsatisfied demand simply because people do not know that they have that right and that power. We have had some very interesting and disturbing cases before us, as hon. Members have pointed out.
Of course, sometimes we are frustrated by the dividing line between maladministration, which the commissioner can investigate, and clinical matters, which, naturally, he cannot investigate. As recent cases have shown, that dividing line becomes blurred. That is particularly important as concern arises about the success of the care in the community initiative, which is to be the subject of legislation. I am a great supporter of that initiative, and in Somerset it has been very successful.
At page xv of his 1992–93 report, the commissioner referred to a disturbing case involving an absconding mental patient who, at 4 am, caused great damage to a private house next to the establishment where he was detained. What worried us was the health authority's failure to provide proper redress and the lack of knowledge of what became of that patient.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) referred to the attitude of bureaucrats. There was evidence from a hospital in Glasgow on page xvii of that same report, and it appeared that complainants were discouraged from complaining. I am sure that neither the commissioner nor the Select Committee would tolerate that.
We regularly take evidence from the chairmen and chief executives of hospital trusts. There is sometimes an arrogant attitude, a lack of sympathy—even at that stage—and a failure to take responsibility. As I found when I served on the Public Accounts Committee, the officials who were responsible for what went wrong had moved on. I hope that the Select Committee will continue to examine that matter. I look forward to the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert G. Hughes): I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this extremely interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who has been present throughout the debate and has intervened in it, has also been extremely interested to hear the many important points that have been made.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, it is 27 years since the establishment of the office of the parliamentary commissioner for Administration and, indeed, of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Experience has proved the great value of their respective roles. I join every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate in paying tribute to the Select Committee members and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth for the dedicated work that he does in chairing the Committee.
The Government must set high standards for administration and must work continually to improve standards still further, thereby presenting new benchmarks


for the ombudsman. The spread of the parliamentary commissioner's responsibilities has been enhanced in the past year by new functions connected with the code of practice on access to Government information, which some hon. Members mentioned during the debate and which I will mention in a moment.
I also pay tribute to Mr. William Reid, the ombudsman, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in my office shortly after I became Parliamentary Secretary. I was pleased to be able to pay a return visit to his office yesterday to see the work that he and his staff carry out.
I am pleased to say that our intent in establishing a code of practice on access to Government information was welcomed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). Since April, the parliamentary commissioner has had an important new role of policing the code. As Mr. Reid said last month:
A prerequisite of good government is adequate openness combined with an external regulating mechanism which gives openness its credibility".
Decisions about the release of Government information have been subject to independent review by the ombudsman, which I think is a good thing. The code and the reports published by the ombudsman show that the system is working so far. If there are not enough complaints, people say that the service was not well publicised; if there are many complaints, people say, "Obviously the Government are not being very open". Sometimes one feels that one cannot win.
Although the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) criticised the lack of publicity given to the code, I recall signing answers to parliamentary questions in the past few months which have criticised the Government for spending too much on publicity in some areas. The Office of Public Service and Science has distributed more than 52,000 copies of the explanatory leaflet to more than 1,300 carefully targeted recipients, such as citizens advice bureaux and libraries. We have sent out 5,600 copies of the code and the parliamentary commissioner has done a great deal to publicise the code's existence. I think that the system is working well.
In the short time available to me, I will try to answer a number of specific points raised during the debate. If I fail to do so through lack of time, I will write to the hon. Members who raised other points.
I will use as my basic script the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. He questioned the use of the term "ombudsman". That point was raised also by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
The Government agree that the term "ombudsman" should not be used in organisations which are subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman. The citizens charter unit within the OPSS wrote to Departments earlier this year to ensure that they were aware that all charters contain and draw attention to the role of the parliamentary ombudsman.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central said that the Government are not taking up that point, in fact my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the

Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Committee Chairman on 19 August assuring him that we took the point extremely seriously. We have copied that letter to members of the Cabinet, the Attorney-General and the Cabinet Secretary and we have made it very clear that they should avoid confusion and should not use the term "ombudsman" for organisations which are subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth raised the point about epitomes of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration cases. He is absolutely correct: it is extremely important that people should know what the ombudsman is doing and saying. The hon. Member for Leeds, West said that it is important that when mistakes happen in one Department, they are not merely repeated in other Departments because of a lack of knowledge of what has been said.
The Government have accepted the recommendation, and the OPSS—with the help of the parliamentary ombudsman's office—has adopted a procedure to circulate epitomes of cases to Government Departments and other bodies within the parliamentary commissioner's jurisdiction. The first batch was circulated in November. As well as that, we hope that the booklet "The ombudsman in your files" will be ready for circulation to Departments and agencies by the summer.
A point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), and by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Central and for Leeds, West was that a debate should be held each Session. I understand the desire for that. The first problem is that it is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House, who doubtless always considers matters that are put to him. But it is easy for Members to demand a debate every year, or whatever frequency we want, for every subject which we regard as important.
This is an important subject, of course,but I wonder how much demand there would be from Members for a full day's debate. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that it would not have to be full day's debate. But, with cross-party agreement that we should proceed with much of the Jopling Committee report, the time for such a debate will be restricted. It is important that Members take that on board when asking for more debates on different areas.
The Member of Parliament filter is vital. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth, for Suffolk, Central and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and with the hon. Members for Leeds, West and for Cannock and Burntwood. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton is crucial, and the hon. Member for Leeds, West also referred to it. The position of an hon. Member is crucial. I cannot think why any Member would refuse to pass a case on to the ombudsman. It ought to be clear to everyone that, regardless of a Member's political view, he is elected to be a Member of Parliament and he should take up any case on a constituent's behalf. If he is not able to make progress or if the constituent is not satisfied, the last resort should be the ombudsman, who will give the matter thorough consideration and decide whether something can be done.
I regard the Member of Parliament filter as very important. I refer again to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who talked about the charter and


redress. It is a charter principle that when things go wrong in the public services, they should give an apology, a full explanation and an effective remedy.
Under the citizens charter, the Government are actively encouraging a greater awareness of the complaints procedure. That is partly why the amount of work going to the ombudsman is increasing. As has been said by hon. Members, we are empowering the users of public services and giving them more information. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) said that we are making sure what service the public should get and how they can complain if they do not get that service.
Another point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West and picked up by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth is the complex matter of whether there should be inclusions to a list of jurisdictions, or whether we should simply exclude those areas where we do not want the parliamentary commissioner to operate. The Government are prepared to consider carefully whether the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 could be amended as proposed. As the purpose of the Committee's proposal was primarily to reduce confusion, however, we will first explore whether publicity could describe the position more clearly. We are still studying the matter and considering ways in which to clarify which bodies come within the PCA's jurisdiction. I hope that members of the Committee in particular will recognise that this is not a simple matter and that most hon. Members may not think it appropriate for the security intelligence services, the Cabinet secretariat and nationalised industries to come within the commissioner's jurisdiction.
The hon. Members for Cannock and Burntwood, for Glasgow, Central and for Hall Green argued that the ombudsman should be in the same position as the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Government agree and that change will happen when we have an opportunity to legislate. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, when he said that the Opposition will give all the Bills in this Session a swift passage through the House to enable time to be made available for that specific legislation. I am sure that the business managers also took note of that assurance. We all recognise the difficulty in finding time in the parliamentary timetable, but when an opportunity presents itself, we will legislate to make that change.
The hon. Members for Cannock and Burntwood and for Glasgow, Central asked whether the parliamentary commissioner should have the power to initiate investigations. It is not clear to me why that is necessary. The PCA can, if necessary, take up a deserving case with a member of the Select Committee. As for the question of the "MP filter", I believe that hon. Members should take a case to the ombudsman only after they have taken it through the appropriate stages. I am not sure that the power to initiate investigations would add anything to the ombudsman's role.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who complained about the use of initials, acronyms and jargon. That drives us all absolutely mad. In common with other hon. Members present, I spent some time in local government and it is awful when people talk in a language completely incomprehensible to anyone not part of the same organisation. It is not just local government which is guilty of that. According to the

Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the way in which we have changed the whole structure of government through the next steps initiative has been the most successful reform in recent decades.
I accept, however, that we could have come up with a clearer name than "next steps". If we intend to put examples of what the parliamentary commissioner has said at the disposal of people, I wonder whether calling them epitomes is the most clear way of describing them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central raised the difficult case of court staff in Scotland. He recognised the constitutional difficulties, but he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 8 December to say that he has decided to review the position and is consulting the Scottish judiciary. He will contact the Committee again in due course.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton spoke about commercial and contractual matters. The Government believe it appropriate to continue to exclude them from PCA jurisdiction, other than those concerning the compulsory acquisition of land or the disposal of surplus land acquired compulsorily. I will write to the Chairman of the Committee and hon. Members about that specific matter in more detail.
The points that hon. Members have made about the health service are extremely important and they have been noted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health. He has already made it clear today that the Government will respond soon to the Wilson report. Hon. Members will appreciate, however, that 600 responses have been received and it is important to ensure that they are considered carefully.
The debate has revealed our common belief that the parliamentary commissioner plays an important role in assisting Parliament to protect the individual citizen against the effects of maladministration. Sometimes he plays a crucial role in issues of national importance, but sometimes he plays a role in putting right a problem for an ordinary citizen which, to him or her, is equally important.
I express what I believe is the sense of the House: that Parliament has been well served by those who have been appointed ombudsmen, those who serve him on his staff and hon. Members on both sides of the House who serve on the Select Committee.
It being Ten o'clock MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which she was directed by paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1994–95

Class XIII, Vote 4

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £45,825,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services, including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.

VOTE ON ACCOUNT, 1995–96

Class XIX, Vote 4

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £4,277,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1996, for expenditure of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales on administrative costs.
It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which she was directed by paragraphs ( I) and (2) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates etc.), to put at that hour.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1994–95

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,230,882,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 3 of Session 1994–95.

ESTIMATES 1995–96 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £95,393,674,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services in Classes Ito XVIII, Class XIX, Votes 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, and Classes XIX, A and XIX, B for the year ending on 31st March 1996, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of Session 1994–95.

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Sir George Young, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Anthony Nelson do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Sir George Young accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1995 and 1996; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day and to be printed [Bill 7.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Employment Rights After Manic Depression

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for putting at the top of tonight's agenda the subject of employment rights after manic depression.
Each kind of disability has its own problems, challenges and opportunities but of none is that more true than of manic depression. I mean nothing but encouragement for concerns about other kinds of disability and for disability in general in raising this much-neglected part of the subject.
The Government's consultation document on disability said that a workable employment right should be based on a definition that, in principle, covers physical, sensory and mental impairments. I hope that the promised Bill, code of practice, notes of guidance and national disability council will deal more fully with mental illness than did either the consultation document or the Minister's statement on 24 November.
In the index of the House's proceedings I can find no record of the House of Commons having had a debate specifically on manic depression, or any aspect of it, in the past 10 years. More broadly, on mental illness, including depression, a recent Gallup survey showed that the general public believe that people with mental illness, including depression, should be at the bottom of the national health service priority list.
There is much straight ignorance. In still too many cases people are discharged from hospital without their families being told of the nature of their illness or even the necessary continuing drug regime. Neighbours and social workers unschooled in the symptoms of mental illness put outrageously anti-social behaviour down to avoidable malice. But, mercifully, many ordinary people are extraordinarily understanding, forgiving and helpful.
Attitudes are changing. In the past generation, there has been a much greater acceptance into the community of the mentally handicapped, who are more easily recognised than the mentally ill. In my constituency experience—first in a constituency on Teesside and later in Scotland—the changed attitude to mentally handicapped people has owed much to Catholic influence.
Mental illness is less easily recognised, but attitudes to it also appear to be changing. The younger generation show greater understanding and support than their elders. The sight of so many homeless people sleeping rough on our streets after discharge from psychiatric hospitals has been a great shock, giving the sense of, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."
It is more widely appreciated that mental illness is as genuine as physical illness, and that it is not malingering. Indeed, evidence is accumulating on the possible physical causes and symptoms of different types of mental illness. During a visit last week to the Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford, as part of the inquiry into human genetics by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, it was interesting to speak to researchers who are applying the ideas and methods currently being


pursued in developing somatic cell therapy for principal physical diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases, to mental illnesses and handicap.
In addition to a normal distribution of human attributes generally, manic depression often appears to carry with it a heightened sensitivity and awareness, which has a wider function in day-to-day society and in the family, the community, the work group, business, democracy, committee, Parliament or football team. Employers take advantage of the energy, vitality, productivity and enterprise of people vulnerable to manic depression when their condition is under control. They may be qualities that we all need, but they can get out of hand in a manic depressive. Those are matters not only for objective medical and psychiatric research but for social accommodation and public understanding and for campaigning and organisation, of which we need to take account in framing social policy.
One per cent. of the population will suffer from manic depression during their lives, and another 1 per cent. from schizophrenia. Many more people suffer from acute, disabling depression, without manifesting the full symptoms of the manic depressive. About 20 per cent. of women and 10 per cent. of men can be expected to suffer from depression at some time during their lives.
Suicide is overwhelmingly associated with depression. Each year there are more than 100,000 attempted suicides in this country, of which 4,000 are fatal. That figure compares with 3,500 road deaths. Christmas is an especially difficult time for mentally ill people, when so many activities and services are closed.
The experience of each sufferer from manic depression is unique, but between the swings into manic elation and acute depression, manic depressives behave like anyone else. Their wish is to be accepted in society and to contribute to it fully, in every way, in work, at home and in their wider social life; often they succeed.
The characteristics of manic depression are frequently not noticed by people who already have a difficult enough job coping with normal problems—social workers, housing and social security officials, personnel managers, employers and trade union officials. I confess that it was many years before I learnt some of the obvious signs of mental illness myself, when constituents in trouble came to see me.
According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners, who can be expected to be objective about those matters, surveys show that 50 per cent. of those people suffering from clinical depression do not visit a doctor at all, and of those who do a further 50 per cent. are not diagnosed.
The cost of not treating depression has been estimated by the Office of Health Economics at about £3 billion per annum—nine times the £333 million cost of treating depression.
In his statement on 24 November, the Minister for Disabled People said:
Greater employment opportunities are at the heart of enabling disabled people".—[Official Report, 24 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 741.]
On 26 November, the Manic Depressive Fellowship held a useful forum on employment, which I attended. I shall tell the House about some of the things that were said and points that were made, there and elsewhere, by people who have suffered from manic depression.
Some people have to live with episodes of manic depression throughout life, but others are able or enabled to control it. They suffer from only a temporary incapacity, but they remain vulnerable. Care can be effective, but mental illness is not a high priority for community care in many parts of Britain. Manic depression is an illness that begins in adult life or late adolescence, so appropriate continuing and adult education is as necessary as appropriate school education is for other disabilities. Strategies for completing studies and achieving a professional or vocational qualification are important.
The perception of manic depressives is that if they go along to the jobcentre and say that they have had an episode of manic depression they will be steered towards low-paid, unskilled work. That is a common experience of graduates, accountants, lawyers, teachers, business managers and other professionals. Their true capabilities are not recognised or thought to be recoverable.
What specific practical help is offered to manic depressives under the access to work programme? It is good that the Department of Employment is willing to spend money on the disabled who need easily identifiable physical aids, but what will it do to boost the skills, performance and self-confidence of those whose productivity has been undermined by mental illness?
The Government's talk of civil rights education for the disabled makes no reference to the existing battery of legislation on mental health. Episodes of illness can provoke irresponsible behaviour which can endanger the safety of the patient and of others. Fortunately, patients can recover from manic depressive episodes, and from a medical and psychological point of view those people are fully able to resume their usual responsibilities. Unfortunately, much of society and some aspects of the law presume that once a person has gone mad, he will always be mad. People are awaiting the new mental health Bill with keen interest. I trust that its scope will be wide enough to accommodate the debate needed and to enact the conclusions that are reached.
If manic depressives are honest about their illness to their employers, or in seeking work if they are out of work, they find that the only work options that they will be offered are jobs well below their capabilities. To overcome that prejudice, many patients lie or tell less than the full truth. Consultant psychiatrists and general practitioners actively encourage manic depressives to do that. The practice has helped a good many manic depressives to very senior positions. Suggestions are made now about how to fill in gaps in curriculum vitae with less than the full truth.
Is it not right that people should have the right to say nothing of a long past episode of mental illness? If a discharged prisoner can legally keep silent about his record, why should not a discharged mental patient? Any legal requirement to tell people of mental health records should not extend back further than five years.
As long as the patient does not become ill in the workplace, the practice of lying or omitting to tell the truth can prove satisfactory to the employee and to the unwitting employer. However, if a patient becomes ill at work, or his psychiatric case history becomes known some other way, problems may occur. Neither the employee nor the employer would have made contingency plans to cope with the event of a mental health


emergency, and the employee would have committed a breach of contract by lying or by telling only part of the truth.
We need a clear legal framework that is fair to employees and to employers, but the industrial tribunal may not be the best place to resolve a dispute regarding a psychiatric patient. Industrial tribunals are pretty traumatic for those who are mentally stable. They would be horrendous for a psychiatric patient. Who would want their psychiatric case history to be laid before the tribunal, let alone read out in open court? There needs to be some legal remedy against employers who use the illness to discriminate. The mutual responsibilities of employer and employee are not clear and the lack of clarity acts as an effective artificial bar to the labour market.
The manic depressive is vulnerable in other ways. Far from easing someone who has been ill for a long time back into employment, the social security benefit system makes re-entry both difficult and risky. It is often better for someone who is getting over an episode of manic depression to re-enter the employment market gradually and cautiously. The possibility exists of retreat back to benefit should the move be premature or too stressful. If such people fail to hold down a job, they should not have to face all over again the barriers, delays and humiliations that the benefit system inflicts. The means should be found to provide people who are prepared to try entering employment after a long and severe illness with a safety net—that they will be able to return to invalidity benefit without waiting six months and going on the much lower income support.
In theory, the disability working allowance should offer a well-supported route upwards into employment but with a safety net for those people whose illness recurs. In practice, however, few manic depressives claim the allowance. Severe problems are connected with it. Its receipt depends on the understanding of the employer. That may be fine if a person is in a wheelchair or suffers from Down's syndrome but, as I have already said, the mentally ill are faced with major problems in relation to what to tell employers.
The number of manic depressives entering employment via the allowance route is minuscule. People who take that route are often no better off financially than they were when on benefit. Someone who has been covered for six months by a doctor's sick note should be on invalidity benefit and can do therapeutic, part-time work—for example, for a charity—and earn up to £15 per week pocket money without losing benefit. That would bring the disposable income of a single person up to £79 in round figures. In addition, one would be entitled to housing benefit and council tax rebate, both of which are valuable benefits.
If people on the allowance begin to work again, at most they will be only £1 to £2 better off than they were on invalidity benefit. The problems of the combined effects of tapers and clawbacks are well known, but they are especially crippling to vulnerable people. They amount to a 97 per cent. tax on additional earnings of more than £50 per week. It is small wonder that only 3,500 people with all kinds of disability are on the allowance. About the only thing that can be said in favour of the allowance is

that, if people on it cannot sustain a job, it provides a safety net. They can go back immediately to the benefits to which they were formerly entitled.
Those problems have been argued for many years in relation to many sorts of disabled people, but fresh problems exist in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations, which were laid before the House on 24 November 1994 and which, no doubt, we shall debate soon under the affirmative procedure. The regulations omit people with severe mental health problems from the list of persons with a severe condition who are to be treated as incapable of work, despite an undertaking given to a number of organisations that persons with severe mental illness would not be subjected to the work test.
The effect of the regulations as drafted will be that persons with severe mental problems will be subjected to a work test, regardless of their mental state. The questionnaire that will be used to assess them has been widely criticised as inappropriate. Administering the questionnaire is likely to cause extreme distress to many severely ill patients. I cannot believe that the Government would allow the regulations to be the last word. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Good practices and pioneering projects on employment operate in many parts of the country and in many different fields. They play an invaluable role for those recovering from mental illness. Counselling and staff support schemes are now operated by some employers, offering confidential support to help individuals in employment to deal with problems that may be affecting their performance at work.
The cost of mental health problems to British employers is enormous. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that sickness certificates attribute 30 to 40 per cent. of absences from work to some form of mental or emotional disturbance. The Scottish Association for Mental Health has reviewed the experience of the counselling and staff support schemes. Obviously, such schemes can play an important role in keeping people well and productively employed.
Many employers in Scotland operate staff support schemes in all or some of their establishments. They include British Telecom, United Distillers, Scottish Mutual, BBC Scotland and Marks and Spencer. The Working Well trust in Tower Hamlets supports employment and training in printing, clothing manufacturing, office services and shops and is now branching out with a new project in Bath. The Mental After Care Association runs a wide range of activities nationwide, some of which are directed at employment and training.
Another route that many manic depressives find useful is the voluntary work that is available in a wide variety of organisations. It offers them a start on the road back to regular employment. It is often not the content of the work but the availability of a supportive working community that is important.
Those who have been mentally ill want to return to a normal social and working life. They do not want to be stranded in a ghetto. The contracting-out revolution has made work insecure for a great many people and the mentally ill are not the only ones who suffer. However, on the way back into employment, the contracting-out revolution makes it possible for some people gradually to re-enter the labour market in some skilled and


professional areas. Good employment practices for contracting out services by the fully fit require clear task setting, milestones, delegated responsibility and an interest in and encouragement of progress. Those are doubly important for those who have been mentally ill.
Perceptive and enterprising practices are not limited to large firms. One of the best worked-out schemes that I have seen is in Context, the firm that is recording for posterity on compact disc our proceedings in the House. The employment offered by some firms is not undemanding. Some firms in the market for new high-tech skills realise that people who have had a breakdown can learn fast and perform well.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners, in their current comprehensive defeat depression campaign, are seeking to raise awareness at work, to promote health education for employees, to address the organisational forums that create stress and to provide effective occupational health services. The Government should join forces with all those and other firms and agencies, many of whose activities they are already supporting in one way or another, to create a pilot scheme or schemes geared directly to the needs of manic depressives and their employers. They have done that with particular groups of the physically disabled. The evidence and experience gained can provide the basis for a national scheme that can be backed up with the proposed legislation and code of practice. It needs to be run by a multidisciplinary team and, of course, implementation should be done by those already active in and responsible for educating, training and re-establishing the manic depressives in employment. In that way, employers can get back-up when they need it and of the kind that they need.
The scope of individual schemes needs to be considered. At the point of delivery in a firm, a scheme covering a wider field—covering depression and mental illness generally—would have a wider scope and be more often used than a scheme for specific mental illnesses such as manic depression. The treatment needs of different illnesses differ greatly and it would be necessary to be able to call on those able to deal with the special needs of each of them.
In the guidance notes and in implementing the Government's code of practice, there would be scope for those several different kinds of people, who are all called disabled but whose particular problems, challenges and opportunities need to be addressed separately, to be served by a coherent set of schemes. Manic depression would be a good place to start because it has been neglected, because there is a potential to be realised and because there are people throughout the community who have a deep understanding of the condition that is so near to the centre of each of us.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): rose—

Mr. Ian McCartney: Would the Minister like to speak first? I do not mind, it is near Christmas.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. McCartney: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on his success in the ballot. I congratulate my hon. Friend not

on the lucky draw but on the subject that he selected. For many years before I became a Member of the House, I was a voluntary advocate for people suffering from mental illness and stress. Indeed, in my family today, through my wife, that role of working with people who suffer from mental stress continues.
I welcome this opportunity, therefore, especially as this is my first speech in my new portfolio as spokesperson for employment. Previously, I had been spokesperson for health. I did not expect my first debate in my new capacity to be so directly related to my previous portfolio as Labour party spokesperson on occupational and mental health. Although it is late in the evening and few other hon. Members are here to support either the Minister or me, I welcome a debate in which we can have a dialogue on the serious issues that my hon. Friend raised.
It is important to set a background to mental stress at work and what has been happening during the 1980s and 1990s. We now know from various reports that upwards of 1 million British workers suffer from work-related stress as a direct result of Government activities and the labour market changes in the 1980s and 1990s. Employees in full-time work are now working harder and longer hours than ever before. Redundancy, short-term working, part-time working, temporary or part-time and temporary low-paid jobs produce a sense of a loss of security and an overwhelming sense of insecurity at work. That has led to—it is continuing—increased stress at work, including manic depression.
That is the view of not just the Labour party, the trade unions, the advocacy groups representing people at work with a mental illness, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Select Committee; it is shared across a range of activities. Interestingly, a recent report, highlighted in The Times, was produced by Professor Cooper of the university of Manchester's institute of science and technology on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive—an organisation directly responsible to the Government, which advises them on stress at work and on health and safety issues in general. Professor Cooper, in his report to the Health and Safety Executive, said:
the situation was probably worse in Britain than in America as the country had gone through greater change.
That relates to the Labour market changes imposed by the Government. He said:
The Thatcher era had been marked by technological and economic change and the country was also facing substantial social changes. The incidence of work-related stress had increased markedly in the past 20 years and more people were taking sick leave because of anxiety …
`Those on the shopfloor work till they drop while senior managers take a few days off every now and then'".
That report was produced by an eminent professor, on behalf of the United Kingdom's most eminent independent Government-related body dealing with health and safety.
Last year, citizens advice bureaux in the United Kingdom answered 882,257 queries about employment problems. That is an astonishing figure for a voluntary organisation, and it does not count those who consulted trade union or other employment organisations or sought the help of their doctors, the Royal College of Psychiatrists or advocacy groups. It suggests the existence of a deep-seated, underlying problem in the British economy: people's sense of insecurity is manifesting itself in stress and mental illness.
Again, that is the view not just of the organisations that I mentioned. A recent report in The Guardian by Tim Radford stated that in Britain workers were suffering the worst levels of stress in Europe. It stated:
British white-collar workers have the lowest 'feelgood' factor in Europe, according to a survey of office workers".
The survey was carried out throughout the world, but Mr. Radford referred particularly to Europe. He said:
More than half claim stress has increased in the past two years, and 16 per cent. admit it has caused them to take time off. Thirty-seven per cent. do not feel appreciated at work, against a European average of 29 per cent. Confidence in management ability is 53 per cent., against 69 per cent
in other European countries.
British workers felt that their jobs were less safe—they felt less secure about being able to remain in employment—than their European counterparts, which led to increased mental stress at work.
The Policy Studies Institute's survey of 1993, which I am sure the Minister read, revealed two startling facts. About one in three employees reported significant stress levels owing to working conditions, while 54 per cent. felt that their level of stress had increased over the past five years. The Department of Health and the CBI estimate that sickness absence related to stress and mental disorder is costing the United Kingdom economy a staggering £56 billion per annum. That does not count on-costs such as medication, benefits, high staff turnover and poor judgment leading to bad decision making.
The Department of Health also states that mental illness is one of the main three causes of certificated sick leave, with a consequent loss of 91.5 million working days in the British economy. In 1993, the number of working days lost through strikes was 649,000. Those, too, are staggering figures.
The situation has become so acute that the International Labour Organisation, which brings together union, employer and Government representatives, has said that
the time has clearly come for a shift in attention in occupational health prevention activities away from a 'physical hazards only' perspective to a focus which includes full attention to psychosocial hazards".
In layman's terms, that points to a large increase in the number of people suffering from mental illness and stress in the workplace. We need to ensure that organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive, and indeed the Government, bear in mind the key subject of mental stress when making policy: it is as important and damaging in the workplace as accidents and other forms of illness. The Trades Union Congress and its general secretary, John Monks, have identified occupational stress as one of the top five health and safety priorities. Mr. Monks and various trade unions have a team to advise them on how to tackle the problem through the development of prevention strategies.
A research review of occupational stress by Professor Tom Cox for the Health and Safety Executive reported that there was too strong a focus on caring for or curing individuals and that
only a minority of organisations appeared to be directly and deliberately addressing the management of occupational stress.
Professor Cox, on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, said that there was a need for intervention policies in industry, involving employers and employees,

to create a programme for the prevention of stress and a comprehensive package of care in the workplace. Where stress had not been prevented, it was necessary to ensure that sympathetic policies were followed so that individuals suffering from mental stress were able to continue in work, either full time or part time, as described in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South.
I shall deal now with the discrimination suffered by citizens with a disability such as manic depression. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South spent a great deal of time outlining the problem, and rightly so. The level of discrimination against those suffering from mental illness or a perceived mental illness is a challenge for policy makers of all political persuasion. One and a half million people with disabilities are without a job and are not in training. People with a psychiatric history experience severe discrimination in the employment market. Those recovering from mental distress need help to find ways back to work and may need support in the workplace so that they can work on equal terms with other employees.
A survey of users and ex-users of mental health services carried out by MIND, the National Association for Mental Health, found that there was a massive exclusion of such people from the workplace as a mental health disability was seen as relevant to the ability to do a job. Sixty-three per cent. of people felt that their job prospects were affected by their history while the unemployment rate among ex-patients was found to be sometimes as high as a staggering 62 per cent. The most poignant fact to come out of the survey was that one third of those suffering from mental stress said that finding a job was the single most important thing that could assist them back to health and help them to regain their dignity.
Why is employment such a low priority for health and social services funding? Users of mental health services regard employment and training as high priorities, but, of the 554 projects funded by the mental illness specific grant, only 19 are employment related. That is a travesty, and the problem is compounded by the fact that the Employment Service restricts the funding of rehabilitation programmes to 13 weeks' crude targeting of the funding criteria. It is leading to severe discrimination against users and former users of mental health services.
There is a danger under community care that the Government will declare that many people are too well to be dealt with by the health services but too unemployable to be helped by the Employment Service, which means that they will fall between two stools and fail to get access to employment and training opportunities.
People suffering from mental illness require the Government to initiate an action plan. They need urgent policy initiatives by the Departments of Employment, Health and the Environment to rectify the lack of co-operation between Government-funded agencies and to provide employment and training opportunities. We need a redefinition of mental distress at work as an occupational health issue, which would mean enforceable codes of good practice involving support at work. I shall explain what is required in a moment, but it is important at this stage to point out that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South said, there are employers—large and small—that already have in place model agreements with their work force to ensure that


there is a policy for the prevention of stress and mental illness and that, when people are suffering, there is a code of practice agreed between the employers and employees.
The Post Office has one of those codes of practice, which I advise other employers to read. It represents a way forward with regard to preventing mental stress or dealing with it so as to ensure continuity of employment for the individuals concerned, if possible, or at least to ensure that they are treated with dignity in the workplace during a period of mental stress.
The first aspect of the code is interesting, as it clearly shows the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, through the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It says:
The parties to this agreement recognise that stress at work is a health and safety problem and that employers have a duty under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to take all reasonably practicable measures to prevent stress at work. Under Section 7 of the Act employees have a duty not to endanger themselves or others and to co-operate with their employer in meeting statutory requirements.
The Post Office is an employer that implicitly accepts that causing mental stress and mental illness at work because of poor conditions of employment is a breach of health and safety legislation. It is to be commended for accepting that responsibility.
The code says much more. It specifically sets out positive measures that the employer will take to ensure that an individual suffering from mental stress can remain in the workplace during a period of treatment, with opportunities to work full or part time, by agreement. There are also practical measures to be taken by the employer to eradicate aspects of workplace activity that are leading to mental stress or to an escalation of mental stress, culminating in illness. That is a major step forward and the Post Office, and its employees represented through their unions, are to be congratulated on that model agreement.
Some of the other aspects of an action plan to ensure good support and good practice at work are as follows: extending paid sick leave; provision for retraining or other assistance to enable an individual to continue his or her job or to undertake another job; contacting appropriate Government services and health services for advice, and discussing with an employee whether he or she can continue in the same job or needs to receive special assistance to continue in work. Counselling, too, must be a major aspect of that activity. Those employed in counselling by the employer must, none the less, be independent of the employer and must provide a confidential counselling service to the individual concerned.
There should be provision for special arrangements when employees return to work—for example, flexibility in the times of leaving and arrival; a phased return to work, allowing individuals to come back, probably part time, extending attendance to full time later; extending rest periods for people who wish to continue in work while receiving treatment for their illness, which may be stress related; and exploring the possibility of finding an alternative job, or part-time work, when an employee is unable to continue with his or her existing job.
Those are all practical ideas, and if they were adopted by most employers in the United Kingdom, they would go a long way towards meeting many of the needs described by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell,

South on behalf of sufferers from depression who are in employment and wish to remain in employment, or who are out of work but wish to return to the work force.
It is also important to examine other aspects of the way in which we organise our employment and training services in the community, to ensure that those services are designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities, especially people who suffer from mental illness or mental stress from time to time. The Department of Employment must act as a facilitator and catalyst at the local level to bring together the Department, local authorities and other agencies to ensure that there is a strategic responsibility at local level for collaboration on, and provision of, specialist resources for employment opportunities for people with mental illness. There must be a direct link between health, social care and employment.
As I said earlier, the report by MIND stated that one of the most important aspects of the social care of mental illness was the ability to have access to training and worthwhile employment; bringing social care and employment together had a dramatic effect in improving an individual's overall health. That is particularly important for people who suffer from manic depression.
To help mental health services users become involved in, or to re-enter, the labour market, all training and enterprise councils should employ specialist disablement resettlement officers. I support the TEC movement and I know that many TECs do that. However, determining the level of that input in a particular TEC is usually left to a reliance on the keenness of the individuals on the ground.
We must ensure that such provision does not simply rely on a commitment at local level by individuals in a TEC. All TECs must have minimum levels of standards in terms of the deployment of disablement resettlement officers to ensure that there is a coherent strategic approach to retraining and re-entry to the marketplace by people suffering from mental illness.
It is therefore important to consider the record of TECs in the provision for disabled people. Where we can improve things, we should surely do that. We should give TECs tasks with regard to this difficult area of the employment market. We should clearly define the right to quality assessment of rehabilitation and training for work or college-based schemes for people with mental illness. It is essential that they can enter, and have easy access to, training, but it must be quality training and it must fit in with the employment needs of the individual.
There is nothing worse than for someone suffering from a mental illness to be put into a scheme that is going nowhere and has poor training and, at the end of it, poor opportunities for entering the marketplace and for getting employment. That is a rejection and it undermines the well-being and mental health of the person concerned.
For many people who have suffered mental illness in the past and are looking for a way back into the workplace, proper training schemes are an important aspect of that rehabilitation programme. I would welcome the Minister of State's comments on the specific action that she would like TECs to take to become involved in that aspect of activity with regard to mental stress at work and getting people with mental illness back into the workplace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South quite rightly raised the issue of anti-discrimination legislation. We look forward to seeing precisely what is


in the Government's mind with regard to their Bill this Session. As a minimum standard, I hope that it will ensure the prohibition of discrimination in respect of selection, promotion or dismissal of people suffering from mental stress in employment.
It is important that the Government use that Bill as a clear message to employers not to use mental stress as an easy means to sack employees. Instead, employers should take the positive attitude of prevention of mental stress at work and model agreements between themselves and the employees and employee representatives to ensure that, when mental stress arises, it is eradicated and that it is not, in any circumstances, used as an easy method of dispensing with individuals or a group of individuals in the workplace.
The marginalisation and exclusion of people with a mental health problem, or a perceived mental illness, from the labour market is an overwhelmingly significant factor in undermining their rights to participate in society as a whole. In 1995 and for the remainder of the decade, we will still see, tragically, the continuation of the mass lock-out of people with a mental illness. We will also see the insidious and damaging health effects of long-term mass unemployment.
Of the 1 million people in the United Kingdom who have been unemployed for more than a year, many have experienced or will experience an impairment of their mental health—distress, feelings of depression, anxiety, irritability, sleep loss, inability to concentrate, a lack of or loss of confidence, and a strain in close personal relationships. They are direct consequences of unemployment and the Government's failure in labour force strategies.
It is an appalling indictment that young people may be passive about their plight in terms of unemployment, but that belies the major strains in family relationships and deep-seated feelings of anger which will eventually manifest themselves in individual or collective actions of hostility. Alienation is linked like an umbilical cord to mental health and suicide. The suicide figures, as my hon. Friend said, are a sobering indictment on society. Many young people feel total hopelessness about their lives and their ability to be seen as a meaningful part of society, and they end up taking their lives because of the alienation of unemployment in the community.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Labour party is genuinely in the business of advocating co-operation with employers, employees, users and ex-users of mental health services, to ensure appropriate, genuine access, free from discrimination, to training, rehabilitation and employment opportunities. I hope that the Minister will rise to the occasion and give a clear indication that the Government, at long last, will take seriously the growing scandal of mental stress at work and, with it, the cost in human terms and to the British economy.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on obtaining the debate and on using it for the purpose that he chose. He put his case in a sensitive, moderate and thoughtful way, which contrasted somewhat with the ranting which emanated from the Opposition Front Bench.
Before addressing the general issues surrounding mental illness and manic depression in so far as they relate to employment, I shall refer to some specific points that have been raised. One or two specific points were more properly for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education with respect to one point, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. Nevertheless, because there is rather more interdepartmental co-operation than the Opposition spokesman gave us credit for, I will be able to answer other points raised under those other departmental responsibilities.
Clearly, how the consultative document will translate into law is a matter on which I cannot give detailed advance notice tonight, even if I had all the details at my disposal. However, there will indeed be guidance to employers about the implications of employing people with different types of mental illness and the types of reasonable adjustment that could be made in respect of employing them. We do not yet know whether that will be guidance or a formal code, as the hon. Gentleman requested, but there will be guidance, and it will not just be on mental illness en bloc. There will be guidance in respect of different types of mental illness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured on that point.
I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the public perception of depression. I think that that spills over into employers' perceptions of depression and how it affects the individual's ability to work. I hope that the disability legislation which we will be introducing in the current Session will focus employers' minds on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of access to work and suggested that, whereas the scheme does very well by the physically disabled, perhaps it is less efficient in assisting those with mental illness. The scheme makes provision for support workers to attend in the workplace people with mental problems, or those who have had problems in the past. The support workers smooth people's transition into work, set up communications with colleagues and support them when they perhaps feel uncertain in the early stages.
However, the Government are always interested to hear further suggestions about what else the access to work scheme could provide. It is a highly successful scheme which has been broadly welcomed and generally praised, and we would be delighted to consider any suggested refinements to it. I am always willing to receive representations from the hon. Gentleman, either by correspondence or in person— as I told him earlier in the day.
The hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between a prisoner and a mental patient in terms of the information that must be revealed when applying for employment. He suggested that mental conditions did not need to be declared after five years. I point out to him that, even in the case of discharged prisoners, in some occupations it is possible to make inquiries about a person's previous convictions. I am sure he will agree that one cannot make a sweeping generalisation: in certain circumstances—particularly where the safety of others is concerned— it may be appropriate to inquire about someone's medical history, including his or her mental medical history.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a clear legal framework on discrimination. I hope that he will not be disappointed with the Government's disability legislation. He queried whether tribunals were the best place to hear claims for discrimination on grounds of mental disability.
The advantages of tribunals are that they are cheap, informal and, despite the hon. Gentleman's reservations, they are probably the simplest court in which to operate. It is possible to be represented either fully legally or at a lesser level, and I think that, if we are to make sense of anti-discrimination laws as they apply to disability, our tribunals already have ample experience in interpreting the niceties of discrimination law in respect of sex and race. Those bodies have experience in dealing with both employers and complainants.
Obviously at the moment I cannot set out the details of what redress will be available to complainants, how it will be available, and what the procedures will be. That will be made known when the legislation is finalised and brought before the House.
The hon. Gentleman queried the working of the disability working allowance. I share his disappointment at the low take-up generally—quite apart from the low take-up among those with mental illnesses. The figure is somewhat higher than he suggested: it is now 4,562. The Policy Studies Institute has released an encouraging report which states that, although take-up is low, the trend seems to show that the allowance is reaching the people whom it is meant to target. There is a note of cautious optimism there. Nevertheless, the Government have seized on the fact that the take-up of disability working allowance has not been as rapid or impressive as we would have liked. Therefore, various initiatives have been taken to ensure that DWA customers are better off in work rather than, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, possibly facing some sort of poverty trap.
We have now raised the threshold for single people from £43 to £54.75 a week. When that is implemented, it will raise the point at which single people float off DWA from just over £108 a week to £120 a week. We have also addressed the rate for couples and lone parents, whose allowances will be increased from £63.75 to £73.40 a week. We have also decided that DWA recipients with less than £8,000 in savings will now qualify for remission from NHS charges, bringing them into line with those receiving income support and family credit.
We have also adjusted child care elements. Earnings up to £40 a week will now not be taken into account when we calculate entitlement to family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and DWA. There have been various other initiatives which I will not go through in detail. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about those if he is interested.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the statutory instrument which has been laid, and the issue of the procedures which those claiming invalidity benefit must go through if they are mentally—

Dr. Bray: Incapacity benefit.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He raised the issue of the procedures that those claiming incapacity benefit have to go through if they are suffering from mental illness or disability. It is true that those procedures were not specified in the regulations, as it was not believed to be necessary to do so. It was never

intended that the same questionnaires would have to be filled in by those suffering from mental illness. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has written to the Royal College of Psychiatrists to offer reassurance on that point and to say that, since the matter has caused concern, the explanation will now be made explicit through necessary amendments.

Dr. Bray: Will it be made explicit by including mental illness among the types of illness which do not require a works test?

Miss Widdecombe: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point, as that is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I have been told that he has written today to the Royal College of Psychiatrists to offer the necessary reassurances, and to make it clear that those would be made explicit. I cannot comment on the exact nature of the wording to the hon. Gentleman and therefore I will have to write to him. I also entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's support for supported employment and for sheltered workshops. I very much value those schemes, as do the Government. I endorse what he says about the efficiency of the schemes in dealing with people who are suffering from the type of disability that he mentioned.
I turn now—with some reluctance, I must admit—to the speech of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). May I first congratulate him on his appointment, and secondly apologise for just not noticing him? He and I share one disadvantage, which is that when we are sitting behind the Dispatch Box, we disappear.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister should get a high chair.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should get a high chair, as I totally failed to notice him.
Having noticed the hon. Gentleman and listened to his speech, I must say that I thought it introduced a jarring note into what had been, up to that point, a series debate. The hon. Gentleman tried to lay the blame for mental illness, suicide and just about every other disaster which could befall an individual at the door of the Conservative Government. I regard that as a trivialisation of an extremely serious subject, which had been receiving a proper debate in the House until that moment.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way ?

Miss Widdecombe: I listened to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) knows full well that if the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Since the hon. Gentleman raised so many issues, some of them should be addressed. We heard the old myth that part-time work is a source of stress and is somehow second-rate work. That assumption completely ignores the results of the labour force survey, which is completely independent and is not written by the Government. That survey found that 87 per cent. of those who are in part-time work are not in that work because they could not find a full-time job. I should have thought that, given


the subject of the debate, the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the availability of part-time work because it offers opportunities for precisely the type of people we have been talking about—people suffering from specific types of illness—to ease themselves back gently into the workplace.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No. I listened in silent disbelief to the hon. Gentleman's rant and I now intend to address his points without taking any further nonsense from him.
The hon. Gentleman then said that the British feel very much worse than their European colleagues because of their employment situation. What an extraordinary comment, when we have a lower than average European unemployment rate and a high percentage of part-time work. It is all very well making comparisons of how workers feel appreciated at work, but the first and most important thing is to ensure that they have work in the first place. We appear to be doing rather well on that point.
The hon. Gentleman then called for a proper Government strategy. I can only conclude that he has never read "The Health of the Nation", in which we made mental illness one of the five key areas; set targets for improving the health and social functioning of mentally ill people; set a target to reduce the suicide rate of the mentally ill by 33 per cent. by 2000; and set out a three-year public information strategy to try to combat stigma and attitudes, in which we aim to increase understanding, reduce stigma and help users to understand their rights and responsibilities.
The hon. Gentleman then raised the issue of training—at that point I had sympathy with his remarks. The training and enterprise councils operating agreement requires TECs to ensure that suitable high-quality training for work is made available to all participants who are shown by assessment to have disabilities or other special needs. That specifically includes people with mental health problems. I agree with him that we must monitor that agreement carefully to ensure that it is realised in the practice as much as in the theory. I share that aspiration.
People with disabilities, including those with mental health problems, are eligible for training for work, regardless of how long they have been unemployed. They also have recruitment priority for suitable places. About 11 per cent. of people who start training for work have a disability; that is an encouraging statistic, but it is one on which we could obviously build.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about interdepartmental co-operation. An inter-agency group has been set up by the Government, which advises on improving mental health in the workplace. The Government are working to improve employers' awareness of mental health issues. In November 1994, which was not a million years ago, we published the "ABC of Mental Health in the Work Place". In October, the Secretary of State chose the subject of mental health to speak on at the Confederation of British Industry conference. In July, the Department of Health ran a stand on mental health in rural areas at the royal agricultural show. None of that detailed attention is the mark of a Government who are ignoring the issue.
I should now like to consider the serious speech of the debate and to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. We recognise that manic depression is a serious mental illness and a serious disability. It causes profound changes in mood. It can swing an individual from severe depression and deep lethargy to high elation and over-activity. Such mood changes significantly affect a person's ability to function in all aspects of life, including the workplace. The illness typically follows the pattern of remission and relapse, but it can generally be controlled by mood-stabilising medication. Consequently, people who even have severe manic depression can often function perfectly well for much of the time.
People who have the illness are covered by the same employment legislation as those with other disabilities and they can benefit from Government help that is available to disabled people in the labour market. Current legislation on the employment of disabled people is contained in the disabled persons employment legislation that we introduced this year, under which the quota scheme was established. Hon. Members may recall that the scheme imposes a duty on all employers with 20 or more employees to employ registered disabled people as 3 per cent. of those employed. It is abundantly clear, however, that the scheme is not working as intended and does not meet the needs of disabled people.
The quota scheme does not take account of people who become disabled while in employment as the enforceable duties relate only to recruitment and dismissal. In addition, many disabled people think that the entire approach of the scheme stereotypes and stigmatises them.
People with disabilities are increasingly asserting the wish to be treated as individuals and to train and work alongside non-disabled people. They wish to earn their own living in productive jobs on the basis of their abilities. This change in the aspirations of disabled people has increased their reluctance to register as disabled. There are now only about 1 per cent. of registered disabled people in the labour force, many fewer than would allow the 3 per cent. quota to operate as it was originally designed.
My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for disabled people has therefore announced that we intend to replace the quota scheme with a new statutory right that will protect disabled people from unjustifiable discrimination in employment. We know from the response to our consultation document, which was published in July, that the measure will win the support of many disabled people and their representatives. It will be a major step forward in improving the work position of people with disabilities.
The legislation that we propose to introduce will make it unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably than a non-disabled person unless there are justifiable reasons for the difference of treatment. Employers will be required to make a reasonable adjustment to the workplace or to working practices where to do so would help to overcome the practical effects of an individual disability.
Under that legislation, disabled people who consider that they have been the victims of discrimination in employment will be able to make a complaint to an industrial tribunal, as I have already said. The proposals and remedies will be broadly the same as those in relation to complaints under other discrimination legislation. The


Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will similarly offer the full range of its conciliatory services. We shall be consulting on a statutory code of practice to accompany the new Bill. We shall take into account representations such as those made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South this evening. The consultation will be painstaking and thorough. We shall want to be sure that the code takes account of the views and needs of the fullest range of people with disabilities and their representative organisations, and of employers, on good employment practice.

Dr. Bray: I am glad to hear the Minister's intentions. I hope that she will listen also to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I assure the hon. Lady that he is a sensitive, active and able advocate on behalf of the causes of which she is speaking.

Miss Widdecombe: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's courtesy to his colleague. I shall read what the hon. Member for Makerfield said. If I can extract anything from it that appears to be a sensible proposal, I shall, of course, take it into account. Most of it, however, will be lost in the rhetoric of how the Government are responsible for all ills.

Mr. McCartney: Pathetic.

Miss Widdecombe: The speech was indeed rather pathetic—I found it so.
The new right will apply to persons with a physical or mental impairment that is long term or recurring and has a substantial effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It will not, therefore, apply to someone with a temporary disability, such as a broken leg, but people with a long-term substantial or recurring depressive illness—hence manic depression—would be covered.
More generally, the Government would always encourage employers to treat all their employees with the consideration due to them, and to adopt fair and objective personnel policies which maintain a high degree of employee morale and commitment. A comprehensive framework of statutory employment protection rights exists

to safeguard employees against unreasonable treatment by their employers, and naturally that applies to individuals with a disability in the same way as it does to other employees. The Government have recently extended and enhanced those rights, including especially provisions in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.
We are committed to safeguarding legitimate rights of employees, but we must be careful not to damage employment opportunities by imposing excessive financial and administrative burdens on employers. We are satisfied that the current employment protection legislation strikes the correct balance between the rights of employees and the costs to employers, but we stand by our long-term policy of educating and persuading employers to implement good practice in the employment of disabled people.
We aim to enable disabled people to progress as far and as fast as their talents and capabilities allow. The Employment Service network of placing, assessment and counselling teams will continue their work with employers, providing specialist advice and helping them to adopt good policies and practices. Significant progress has already been made, with more than 950 employers now using the disability symbol—twice as many as did so this time last year.
We have debated much tonight about what should be done, but perhaps one should also consider what has been achieved and pay tribute to that. I believe that he introduction of disability working allowance, the carer's premium in income support, the improvements that we made during the passage of the TURER Act, the disability symbol, the work done by placing, assessment and counselling teams and the continuing support that we give to Remploy and other organisations provide solid evidence of our commitment to disabled people. More than 53,000 disabled people were helped to find work last year by Employment Service advisers.
The debate has been useful, and for the most part constructive. I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. I am glad to be able to share many of his aspirations and I hope that, in turn, he will give a genuine and enthusiastic welcome when our Disability Bill comes before the House.

Pig Industry

Mr. Michael Colvin: I am pleased, as a result of the luck of the draw, to speak so early in the Adjournment debate following the Consolidated Fund measures, when the House voted a further total of about £146 million for Government expenditure by various Departments of State. If my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is to reply to the debate, could have won just one tenth of that amount for the pig farmers of this country, my speech would not be necessary.
It is no bad thing to start a speech with an undisputed fact. British farmers are the most efficient in the world. However, farmers everywhere have a reputation for being prophets of gloom. Even so, no one can deny—not even I, as a farmer, and one with an interest to declare in that respect, though not as a pig farmer—that in the past two years agriculture has received considerable benefits from the devaluation of the green pound and that on the whole business has been very good. Arable farmers did well this summer because the weather was kind for once.
Things have not, however, been good for the pig industry, whose fortunes are very low at present. Peaks and troughs have always been a feature of pig farming, but the current trough has been deeper and longer than any others that I can remember. Pig producers financial losses, coupled with existing and pending legislation on nitrates in water, slurry storage and sow stalls is making them consider carefully whether they can continue as pig farmers.
It was clear to me from talking to pig farmers in my constituency only last Friday that specialist pig producers are losing money for the second year running and some may even face bankruptcy. Many of them farm on quite a small scale and quite small acreages and do not have the luxury of being able to diversify into other farm enterprises.
The continuing low level of pigmeat prices has been largely due to a long period of oversupply. The pig herds of European Union states have increased, while here the size of the herd has remained static. The latest EU survey now anticipates a Community-wide fall in the breeding herd which may lead to reductions in 1995, but that is unlikely to result in a big enough increase in prices to stave off a disaster facing the UK pig industry.
To illustrate the problem on prices, I quote from a note from the National Farmers Union provided by Dafydd Owen, the NFU pig adviser. I thank him for the help that he has given me with the figures. He says:
The cost of producing pigmeat in Britain is estimated at around 105 pence per kilo when fully costed and including depreciation of capital. The Average All Pigs Price, which is a weighted average of the prices paid for pigs in the UK, has only exceeded this for one month out of the last 16. The AAPP in the week ending 10 December"—
just recently—
is 102 pence, producers are therefore continuing to lose money on the pigs they produce.
Those losses are market related, but the market has been distorted, first by unfair competition from Europe, particularly Holland, Denmark and France, and secondly, by the self-inflicted burdens of British legislation.
I know that the Government are committed to ensuring fair competition among member states. The common agricultural policy rules must be obeyed at home and when other member states cheat they must be punished. I welcome the fact that as a result of pressure from the Government the European Commission has opened proceedings against a package of state aids to French pig farmers and that the Commission has ruled against the schemes and has demanded the repayment of aid paid illegally. That is welcome, but there is further action that I would like to hear that Her Majesty's Government will take.
In 1991, the House approved regulations which ruled that breeding sows should not be kept in close confinement systems as they were detrimental to the welfare of the animals. I accept that those regulations will not be revoked, but their economic impact can be reduced without compromising the principles that they encompass.
I am also happy that the Government have undertaken not to introduce any further unilateral farm welfare measures which could undermine the competitive position of our producers. That is precisely what the Welfare of Pigs Regulations do. They ban the use of stalls and tethers but give the industry until 1998 to phase them out. Those regulations have been followed by action in Europe and an EC directive now bans the use of tethers in the EU from 1 January 2006. It does not ban the use of stalls. A ban on tethers will therefore not come into force until seven years after the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991 have banned the use of stalls and tethers in the UK.
Imported pigmeat produced using restricted systems will have a cost advantage over our domestic product and imports are likely to win an expanded market share. The economic impact of the regulations on the UK is devastating. The Meat and Livestock Commission estimated that the additional cost of the regulations will be up to £2.70 per pig sold. That is the equivalent to between 15 and 50 per cent. of the annual profit margin. The ban will therefore absorb a significant proportion of the profits, if any, in good years; and when the pig cycle is on the downturn it will merely exacerbate the losses.
The sum of £2.70 per pig is equivalent to more than £1 per sow per week or £2,000 per month for a 500-sow herd. It is estimated that at least 40 per cent.—about 300,000 sows—of the British breeding herd are still kept in stalls with tethers. The total cost of the ban will amount to more than £15 million a year across the industry and will seriously damage the competitiveness of British pig production. In comparison, 90 per cent. of Danish sows are housed in close confinement systems and discussions with Danish industry representatives show that a ban on the use of tethers is not expected to have a major impact.
The MLC estimates that a 10 per cent. fall in pigmeat production in the United Kingdom would weaken our balance of payments by about £100 million—and that excludes the impact of any loss of employment and added value in the processing and manufacturing sectors. There will also be a tremendous impact on individual businesses. The production of pigmeat has become specialised and the backbone of the industry is the hard core of large and efficient producers. Within the UK, 80 per cent. of pigmeat is marketed by fewer than 20 per cent. of producers. The impact of the ban will not be even; those most affected will be the innovators and the committed pig producers, rather than the laggards in the industry, of which there are a few.
What am I asking the Government to do? First, they should amend the regulations to allow the use of stalls for 35 days post-weaning to ensure maximum protection for sows immediately after weaning and during the service period. Secondly, the re-phasing of the ban should be timetabled to harmonise with the European Union tethers-only ban, which does not come into force until 1 January 2006. I should like a firm commitment this evening that Ministers will press to have the EU directive reviewed at the earliest opportunity, with a view to the rules being brought into line with our own, or the ban on the use of stalls and tethers in the UK should be delayed until 1 January 2006.
The third action relates to financial help for pig producers. The amendments that I have suggested will not remove the need for reinvestment by most pig producers of more than £200 per sow. Financial support is necessary to offset that cost. That could be achieved either by introducing a grant scheme or through the taxation system. Currently, expenditure on capital investment may be depreciated at only 4 per cent. per annum when calculating the tax liability of the business. That should be increased to at least 10 per cent. All external fixtures and fittings necessary to replace stalls and tethers should be treated as plant and machinery so that they can be depreciated at a rate of 25 per cent. per annum. Better still, such expenditure could be treated as revenue expense and entirely offset against the earnings of the business.
The other financial help that could be given to pig producers is through the farm and conservation grant scheme operated under objective 5a. That EU regulation allows grant assistance for investments made to improve welfare, but that is not included in the FCGS. I should like the Government to extend the FCGS to include the reinvestment necessary to meet the requirements of the welfare of pigs regulations.
One other measure, which is a Treasury rather than MAFF matter but on which I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment, would be to enable the industry to carry back losses for three years to bring its personal taxation into line with corporation tax. The last measure that I want the Government to consider is a degree of compensation from EU farmers for those being forced to leave the industry because we have been unable to level the pig playing field.
On the positive side, at the Smithfield show a year ago I was pleased to see the launch of the British quality assured pigmeat initiative—BQAP—in which all parts of the British pigmeat industry have co-operated. There are already encouraging signs that that initiative will develop successfully.
Britain's processors, retailers and producers are working to distinguish British pigmeat from that of our competitors on the grounds of higher quality and welfare standards. They also take every opportunity to add value to their pigmeat products for the -benefit of everyone in the production and marketing chain. That will help to improve pig prices, but many producers will not be there to enjoy the improvement if the Government do not seriously consider and, I hope, implement the measures that I have outlined this evening.
On Friday I went to see my pig farmers. I have always enjoyed going to a pig roast. I do not enjoy being the roast, but that is what I was last Friday evening. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is replying

to the debate. I did a little in 1992 to help to get her elected and I hope that she will do a great deal to help the pig farmers of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on obtaining his debate early in the evening. It certainly helps me, and I am sure that it helps the Minister.
The Labour party's view is that it will be best for the animals if the ban on sow stalls and tethers is maintained in Britain. We appreciate the position of the Government on the issue. They made a stand vis-à-vis our European Union allies, but possibly they went a little too far. I cannot criticise the Government for doing that. However, we should press strongly to have the same rules within Europe. It is not right that we should protect our animals if we can then import animals from the European continent which have been treated far worse.
We agree with the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside that use of stalls should be allowed for 35 days after birth. Research seems to show that that is best for the offspring of the sows. If it is confirmed that that is the case, we shall support such a proposal.
We believe that the tax regime should be exactly the same in Britain as in our European competitor countries. I hope that the Minister will agree to do everything that she can to make sure that the tax regimes will be the same.
"Level playing field" is perhaps a phrase that should be banned within these four walls. However, it is possibly the best way of describing what should be the case. It helps no one and it certainly does not help the animals if unfair treatment is exported to other countries. The animals suffer just as much in other countries as in Britain. Our animal welfare conditions are on the whole better than those of any other country in Europe. It is important that we in Britain make sure that our animals in Britain are treated as well as they can be. Our farmers would support that. Animal welfare organisations do so, but I hope that there is no support for exporting to other countries poorer treatment of animals. I am sure that the Minister will consider that point.

Mr. Colvin: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but one of the most active animal welfare organisations is Compassion in World Farming. Should it not turn its attention to the world, rather than concentrating—as it seems to do—entirely on the United Kingdom? Ports are picketed and ferry companies are threatened in order to prevent the export of live animals. Yet the UK animal transport regime is probably better than any in the world. Would it not be a good idea for welfare groups to turn their attention to the continent, where so much abuse continues?

Mr. Jones: I agree that concerned individuals in the UK concentrate on conditions in this country. Sadly, if they got their way the conditions that they deplore would be exported to other countries, whose products the UK imports. The compassion that such organisations display should be directed at animals in other countries as well. By and large, British farmers have the interests of their livestock at heart. I should be loth to see the practices that the hon. Gentleman cited exported to other countries.
We have a responsibility to see that our animals are well maintained. It does no animal good to suffer the unfair treatment that the hon. Gentleman described in other countries. I welcome the Minister's response.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I am grateful for the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) to debate the pig industry, and I thank him and the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for their contributions.
Both mentioned sow stalls and tethers, which have been discussed under the EU directive. I am disappointed that it allows the continued use of tethers in member states until the end of 2005 and does not address stall systems. The UK voted against that directive because it falls far short of our high standards of animal welfare, which we have sought to extend throughout the Union.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of the UK's high standards and the need for unanimity among EU states so that competitive difficulties are not created between Union countries and the UK. I assure the House that we will continue to pressurise the EU to raise its standards to our high level.
We accept that farrowing crates make a valuable contribution to the welfare of piglets. We are funding research into alternative systems, but the risk of piglet mortality is too high to recommend any of them yet.
The Government appreciate the importance of our pig industry. It is a vital sector of agriculture, with total annual production amounting to 1 million tonnes of meat worth around £1 billion at the farm gate. It is a considerable industry. It runs neck and neck with poultry meat as the most popular meat in this country, and leads in most European countries. Annual production of pigmeat in the European Union is a staggering 14 million tonnes, twice the European level of poultry meat production.
I am, of course, aware that pig producers have had a very difficult time. My colleagues and I regularly meet individuals from the industry and the representative organisations. Hon. Members have, moreover, been assiduous in their representations on behalf of the industry. We are, therefore, very fully briefed and I have a great deal of sympathy for the industry's case, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has outlined tonight.
My hon. Friend mentioned the pig cycle, whereby good profitability leads to herd expansion, increased supplies and, ultimately, falling producer prices; it is characteristic of the market. The recent period of low prices and poor profitability, which has affected pig industries throughout Europe, not just in Britain, has come about for exactly that reason. On this occasion, the trough in the pig cycle has lasted much longer than anyone in the industry expected. Cycles have their ups as well as their downs, and the signs are that a long-delayed improvement may now be under way. I am sure that we are all aware that the improvement is somewhat fragile. It is only in the past three weeks that we have seen a small rise in average pig prices, but that is most encouraging and we hope that the rise will continue.
The August pig survey results show that in most member states, weak prices have led to cuts in the breeding herd. This is most important. The total EU breeding sow numbers were 3 per cent. down on a year earlier and there were reductions in all countries except Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.
Pig producers are in a sector that is very much reliant on the market. I know that, for the most part, they are pleased to operate with minimal interference from Government and from Brussels. For that reason, we are determined to ensure that our pig producers are not disadvantaged by other member states of the European Community paying illegal subsidies, however well hidden, to their industries. Hon. Members have mentioned that point; we consider it to be a matter of great importance.
When market conditions are poor, there are always rumours of illegal assistance. If we have any evidence at all, we take it up with the country concerned and with the European Commission. It is, after all, the Commission which has direct responsibility for policing the rules of the Common Market. We have questioned a number of countries—some have already been mentioned in the debate—including Spain, Italy, Denmark and Ireland. So far, only in the case of France have we obtained firm evidence of illegal aids to the pig industry. The example of the illegal French aid scheme demonstrates our commitment and enthusiasm on this point.
We first came across evidence of the French scheme in September 1993 and raised it in that month's pigmeat management committee. We have not let up since. My right hon. Friend, the then Minister, regularly raised it in the Council of Ministers and with Commissioner Steichen. We also pressed the point in every monthly management committee. The Commission eventually took action, under article 93(2) of the treaty, against a FF30 million interest relief scheme and the Stabiporc price stabilisation scheme. The Commission has ordered the French Government to recover aid paid illegally.
I hope that both my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West will be encouraged by the fact that we relentlessly pursued the matter because we believed that we had good evidence. We are pleased that the Commission has the evidence before it. We are now awaiting confirmation from the Commission that recovery of the money has started. We will not let France off the hook. French producers should not be able recklessly to expand their herds in the knowledge that their Government will rescue them. I assure the House that, if my Department is given information that stands up about any evidence of fraud or subsidies that put our industry at a disadvantage, in this or any other agricultural sector, we shall pursue it too. The free market works well in the pigmeat sector, and we are determined that it should operate without interference.
Concern exists, and has been expressed tonight, about the phasing out of sow stalls and tethers, particularly because our welfare requirements are stricter than those set out in the EC directive. The current rules stem from a private Member's Bill introduced in 1991 by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), with overwhelming parliamentary support. That Bill would have banned stall and tether systems within five years: it would have come into force in 1996.
We took the view that such a short phase-out period would be damaging to the industry, and pressed for a deadline that would give the industry time to make the adjustment at a containable cost. As a result, our regulations required the replacement of stalls and tethers by 31 December 1998. The Bill was withdrawn.
The recent long period of low profitability has, of course, affected the ease with which pig producers can comply with that extended timetable. We have received many representations on the point, some of which my hon. Friend has echoed tonight. It has been suggested, for instance, that the timetable should be extended to correspond with the EC directive; that would ban tethers by 2005. but not stalls. Such a proposal, however, ignores the clear view of Parliament, expressed in 1991 and confirmed in a debate on welfare regulations earlier this year. My hon. Friend recognised that there was unlikely to be any change, and I see no realistic prospect that the House will now adopt a different timetable.
It has also been put to us that sows should be kept in stalls during the early part of their confinement, on welfare and productivity grounds. The National Farmers Union recently produced a paper arguing exactly that point. We are reading the paper and taking veterinary advice on it; my officials will discuss it with the. NFU shortly.
My hon. Friend mentioned the campaign for higher tax investment allowances. As I think he recognised, that is a matter for the Chancellor, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will draw it to his attention. Many of the letters sent as part of the industry's campaign arrived too late this year to influence the Chancellor before he had made up his mind; in fact letters are still coming in, even after the Budget speech.
We are aware of the strong feeling in the industry. The Chancellor has made it clear that he does not wish to disturb the neutral tax policy that he has established so carefully, whereby tax allowances reflect the actual life of buildings rather than providing distorting incentives. I can reassure my hon. Friend, however, that the Department considers Budget representations relating to agriculture very carefully, and that if representatives of the industry make known their views in good time for the next Budget we shall consider them carefully when the Department discusses tax changes with the Chancellor.
We are proud of our high standards of animal welfare. I am grateful to both hon. Members who have spoken for their endorsement of those standards. We believe that they are an example to the rest of the Community, and want them to be extended throughout the Community. We are disappointed that our objective has not yet been achieved. In the meantime, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have undertaken not to introduce further unilateral welfare measures that would undermine the competitive position of our producers.
To help the industry, we are funding a substantial and wide-ranging programme of pig research amounting to some £1.6 million in the current year 1994–95. Of that, £447,000 is being spent on research into alternative systems of husbandry in response to the stall and tether ban. We have also contributed to advisory booklets produced by the pig welfare advisory group and have sponsored meetings organised by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service on our behalf to provide additional advice to pig producers on alternative systems.
I am sure that the future of our industry lies in getting across to consumers the message about the unrivaled quality and value of the British product and the high welfare conditions under which British pigs are produced. It would be helpful if the welfare organisations could use some of their formidable powers of persuasion to demonstrate to consumers the high welfare standards employed by British pig producers.
We apply high standards but the fact that the consumer often chooses imported products made from animals that have not been raised under such high standards of welfare sets us all the challenge of raising the consumer's awareness. The consumer must be made to realise that when he buys British pork and bacon he is buying meat from animals that have been reared under humane conditions.
The recently announced British quality assured pigmeat initiative, in which all parts of the British pigmeat industry have co-operated, is equally important in getting the message across. We want it to develop successfully and there are encouraging signs that it will do so.
Our processors, retailers and producers are working to distinguish British pigmeat from that produced by our competitors on the grounds of high quality and welfare standards. Only recently I attended the food fair in Sial in Paris and was enormously encouraged that the British charcuterie stand was very successful and the subject of great interest.
It is important that our producers take every opportunity to add value to their pigmeat products to the benefit of everyone in the production and marketing chain. I know that some British processors are using high-quality traditional pigmeat products and innovative ones to increase our market share and exports.
We are self-sufficient in pork and have achieved record levels of exports in the past two years, but we still have much ground to make up in the bacon sector. The efforts of the industry through the charter bacon scheme, which is now part of the British quality assured pigmeat initiative, have established the British product as a major supply. We have around 43 per cent. of the market share, the remainder being in the hands of the Danes and Dutch. I wish that when people are deciding what to buy in the supermarket or the butcher's shop they would bear in mind not only the quality but the welfare standards behind British products.
We have recently heard of a number of enterprising processors taking back markets from the imported product, which is an encouraging trend. I am sure that it is within our industry's capabilities to make further gains so that we become wholly self-sufficient in pigmeat and perhaps even become a net exporter.
The signs are that in 1995 we shall see better returns and improved profitability for our pig producers although I do not dismiss, and assure my hon. Friend that I share, the concern which was perhaps behind his recent roasting when talking to the producers in his constituency.
I am confident that the British industry has a sound and promising future and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject.

Mr. Colvin: I intervene because I was under the impression that my hon. Friend was coming to her peroration but had not answered my question about grant aid. Under objective 5a, money would be available from the European Union. I think that the current rates are


about 25 per cent., or 40 per cent. for eligible capital investment. I wondered whether the case could be made for grant aid to carry out the improvements that the debate is about.

Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that I did not respond specifically to that point in my hon. Friend's speech. I am not in a position to make pledges on grants or other financial assistance tonight, but I can assure my hon. Friend that his question will be considered. I shall certainly take that message back with me and when grants are being considered in future, if there is a possibility of giving assistance we shall certainly study it seriously. I shall have to return to my hon. Friend on the subject at a later date.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to discuss that important sector of agriculture tonight, and I thank him and the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West for their supportive contributions.

Local Services, Wandsworth

Mr. Tom Cox: I am one of the Members of Parliament for the London borough of Wandsworth, a council known in London and perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom for having one of the lowest rates of council tax in the country. I intend to explain the price that the people of Wandsworth have had to pay for that low tax.
I live in the borough, whose local authority has two basic objectives—first, to keep its council tax as low as possible and, secondly, to get rid of as many of its local authority responsibilities as it can. In both objectives it has been helped in every possible way by the Government, who have worked hand in hand with it. Indeed, Wandsworth has been the testing ground for many Government policies, and no council has more willingly offered to try out any policy. The former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, idolised the council, which indeed was her servant. Its attitude could be summed up in the phrase, "And what next, O leader?" Whatever Lady Thatcher wanted, it was more than willing to help her to test it out.
Wandsworth's reward was generous Government help with funding, which in the days of the poll tax allowed it to set no poll tax. We all know that unless revenue is coming in, the cost of services has to be found in some other way. Wandsworth's solution was the privatisation of some of the services formerly run by the council, cutting other services and closing things down. No council in the country has been more ruthless in doing that than Wandsworth, always with the full support of the Tory Government.
Let us look back over the years. The Tory council in Wandsworth came to power at about the same time as the Tory Government, since when its policies have hit people and the services that are now needed in the borough.
There are now two Wandsworths. The first consists of people who have moved into the borough and who often need very few council services. They say, "If my dustbins are emptied, the streets are kept reasonably clean and the street lights are working, that's it; I don't want or need anything else." The second is made up the people of all ages, from the youngest to the oldest, who need the services that local authorities used to provide, and many still do.
Since the Conservatives won control, the provision of services to meet real needs has declined. I have already referred to the Government's generous funding of Wandsworth council. The Government are still maintaining that funding, but the signs are that it will not continue indefinitely. We are facing what, by any standards, are the worst and most vicious cuts that we have ever seen in the London borough of Wandsworth.
From whatever direction one enters the borough, one sees signs that read, "Wandsworth the brighter borough". One would never see signs reading, "Wandsworth the caring borough," because the borough is most certainly not caring.
I sought this debate to highlight what is happening in the borough and how that will affect services and jobs. The policy now being followed is meant soleey to keep the council tax as low as possible and to get


rid of any services that are currently being run by the local authority. That will be achieved by closing existing services and handing other services over to private contractors to run and to charge what they want. It might also be achieved simply by cutting grants.
No matter how hard organisations try, we know that in the present economic climate they will not be able to make up for the loss of funding that many organisations now receive from the council. I represent Tooting, which, with the other two parliamentary constituencies in the borough and every area and section of the borough, will be hit by those policies. People from all backgrounds running all kinds of services have tried to express their concerns. Someone sees those people, but, as I am told time and again, that person does not listen and most certainly does not care.
I quote from a letter that appeared in the local press. The local press has put the very deep concerns expressed by the people of Wandsworth on its pages week after week. The letter was sent by Jane Taylor, an executive committee member of Age Concern Wandsworth. It was published in a local paper on 13 October. It is headed:
Elderly had been robbed of rights.
She writes:
Age Concern Wandsworth is outraged at council plans to sell residential homes and close day centres.
These plans will affect those most vulnerable, the very old and frail who are socially isolated.
No discussion or consultation has been made with those who use these services and they have been given very little time, if any, to make their views known.
When Community Care legislation encourages joint working practices with the health services and the 'independent sector', this council has decided to go it alone!
The letter continues:
We would hope that any arrangements to move older people from their home will be done with sensitivity and care.
Undoubtedly, most of the residents will be devastated rot only from the physical moving, but, more importantly, by the psychological upheaval this will cause…
Age Concern Wandsworth opposes the decision to close the day centres and luncheon clubs.
As the only means of entertainment, in Wandsworth, for older people who are potentially socially isolated and vulnerable, we have been inundated by callers wishing to express their shock and outrage. Again, our concerns are that these decisions were made without discussions with health care workers and other professionals.
No one can ask me, "Age Concern? Who is it? What does it know?" That letter sets the scene for the brutal, uncaring policies that will be followed by the London borough of Wandsworth. All hon. Members, no matter what party or what area of the country they represent, know that services are needed by people of all ages, but, under the policies that will be followed by that local authority, not one service in the borough will be unaffected.
It is a matter not only of the services that will be affected but of the loss of jobs that will follow. We know that, whoever may take over those jobs, or what is left of them, will do so under new contracts and worse conditions than exist now. Wandsworth already has high unemployment. At the previous unemployment count for Greater London, Wandsworth was the eighth highest.
I have spoken of the closures and cuts and how they will affect all areas of the borough, and there are plenty of them. Let us consider first the closure of the George Potter old people's home. There is absolute outrage in all sectors of the community at the closure of that home. The letter from the executive committee member of Age Concern referred to that home and the problems that the residents could face.
Day centres for the elderly—for example, the Shakespeare, the Queenstown, and the Penfold—in different areas of the borough of Wandsworth are to be closed. In my constituency, the Church lane day centre, which is very popular with local people and which is staffed by dedicated people who are well liked and respected by those who use it, is to close and become a centre for the frail elderly. However, no other provision is to be made in the area for people who now use it. No one in the borough of Wandsworth and no councillor or officer who works for the authority can say, "It's not needed; it's not popular with the local community." It is certainly used and it is very popular.
Longhedge, Holybourne and Park Lodge residential care homes are to be sold. Who will run them and be responsible for the care and living standards of their residents? As the letter from Age Concern— from which I have quoted already— says, there has been no consultation whatsoever with the people affected most directly by the sale of the homes: those who live in them.
Funding cuts will take place across the borough of Wandsworth. The Battersea arts centre, a well-known and respected arts centre, will lose £20,000 from its grant and Wandsworth youth advisory service will lose £22,000. At a time when most people would be looking to increase their involvement with young people, many of whom are out of work and are finding life very difficult, a service to which they relate and which relates to them is to have its funding cut by £22,000. The Garfield community centre will lose £4,700 and the Roehampton community council will lose £4,474.
All types of local groups will have their funding decreased. Many such groups have worked with the people of the borough for a very long time and have proved their worth within the community. One has to ask where the Minister and the people who run Wandsworth council expect those organisations to find other sources of funding when we all know how difficult it is to raise money.
Funding of the local citizens advice bureau will be cut, but I understand that no firm figure has been given yet. Funding of Battersea neighbourhood eye centre will be cut by £28,000. I could list many more local groups that will suffer similar funding reductions.
Balham family centre is located in my constituency. The centre, which has operated for a long time, is highly respected and its work has been quoted often in Government publications. That is a recognition of the skill and competence of those who run the centre and of how well they have performed their duties over the years.
In a letter dated 24 November, Caroline Hartnell, the chairperson of the centre, says:
We understand from Jeff Turmath, our Wandsworth Council liaison officer, that it is proposed to reduce the Family Centre by 20 per cent. from April 1995– a reduction of around £18,000. We feel that a cut of this magnitude would have a very detrimental effect on the work we do".
The centre provides a creche for 15 children aged 18 months to three years four mornings a week. It provides a latchkey project for 29 primary school children of working parents, a school drop-in club four days a week for 10 children aged eight to 13 and lunches for the centre's users and other local people.
The letter from Caroline Hartnell continues:
If our grant is cut by 20 per cent., we will probably be forced to cut our lunch service as we would not want to cut any service provided specifically to children. However, we feel this would seriously detract from all the other work that we do. The lunches are used by many parents and children who use the centre. Many of these are one-parent, low-income families; some are living in bed and breakfast or temporary accommodation. We see the lunches as having two main functions, social and nutritional.
There we have a very clear example of what effect the envisaged cuts of some £18,000 will have on the work done by the centre. What annoys me, and so many people who live in the borough, is that the council cannot say—dare not say—that its problem is that its council tax is so high that it cannot afford to give grants to local groups. It just cannot say that.
The council now says that it will announce shortly that it will be losing money from the Government, and because it is totally committed to its low council tax, it will fight to the death to keep it. Anything that stands in the council's way in keeping the council tax low can simply go the wall.
Many of the services are, sadly, going to the wall, with all the effects that that will have on the very people who need and make use of them. I have touched on only a few items, but the list of cuts that hurt people and the local community goes on. All hon. Members know that our constituents go to district housing offices for a range of reasons. They may go to pay their rent, or if they have problems in their home. However, six offices are to be closed in the borough of Wandsworth.
Home help charges are to go up from £2.30 to £2.70 an hour. Forty pence may not sound like a great deal, but it is if one has a low income and needs a home help. Hon. Members know how valuable and vital home help services are to many of our constituents, wherever we may live or represent.
I shall give another example of the problem. Hundreds of properties in the borough are boarded up, and for one reason only—to be sold. The December issue of the council's newspaper contains photographs of council properties that are now being advertised for sale. Yet this is the borough that has one of the highest number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation of the London boroughs. When people are put into such accommodation, someone has to pay for it—the rest of the community in the borough.
When people become homeless and need bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the one thing that Wandsworth council avoids at all costs is putting them into accommodation in the borough. It will house

people anywhere it can, in any other London borough, rather than in those people's own borough. That policy has created problems for youngsters, who may have to travel a long distance back to the borough to attend their local schools. Those who are lucky enough to have a job, but who have to move into bed-and-breakfast accommodation outside the borough, have to cope with the problems of travelling and increased costs.
Such is the utter stupidity of Wandsworth's housing policy that people are put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, at great cost to the community and with all the upheaval that that causes them, when there are hundreds of empty properties in the borough, waiting to be sold. So much for Wandsworth's claim to be "the brighter borough". For the vast majority of its residents, it most certainly has not lived up to that claim in 1994, nor will it in 1995.
I recently wrote to the Prime Minister to express my concern that the borough's policies would hurt not only the local community but the most vulnerable. He did not respond; he sent my letter to another Department. I received the usual reply, which stated:
We have total confidence in the policies followed by Wandsworth council.
How out of touch can Ministers get? I quoted two letters, one from Age Concern and the other from the chairlady of the Balham family centre. Those organisations are held in great respect and are closely involved in providing services to the people of the borough. I have been told by Ministers, however, that they have total confidence in that borough's policies.
I have already referred to the two Wandsworths that exist. The local people and I accept that the Conservative party controls the borough because it sets an extremely low council tax and has attracted new residents who have little need of council services. The Conservative party is aided and abetted in keeping control of the borough with Government help and its utter obsession with keeping its council tax as low as possible.
As the council prepares its budget for the coming year, we in the borough believe that it is engaged in the most ruthless attack against the services that people admire and want to use. We all know that people needing services and organisations losing funding cannot now turn from the council to other organisations. We all know that it is extremely difficult to obtain additional funding for other projects, let alone to try to maintain the sizeable sums that many organisations in the borough are shortly to lose.
Governments have responsibilities. They can put pressures on local councils. They can question what they do. Indeed, the Government do so repeatedly in their dealings with councils in which they do not have "total confidence". When it does not suit the Government to accept the policies of local authorities, they never cease to attack and to curb them. The Government cannot say that they do not have the necessary power or the responsibility.
I hope that the Minister and his Department will challenge what Wandsworth council proposes to do in the coming months. The other two Members who represent parts of the borough are the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I understand why the hon.


Member for Battersea is not in his place: he is, after all, a Minister. I do not wish to attack other hon. Members. Where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, only he would know.
The issues that I have raised affect the three constituencies in the borough. I beg the Minister not to say, "I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we have confidence in the council." The lives of people of all ages are at risk because of the council's obsession with a low council tax. If not tonight, I beg the Minister to think about what I have said. I ask him to contact the various organisations that I have quoted and to listen to what they say. Let him hear whether they have any confidence in the Conservative-controlled borough of Wandsworth. I can tell him that he will not learn of any confidence as a result of any research with which he or his Department may wish to be involved. The organisations to which I have referred will express no confidence.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing the debate. I congratulate him also on the eloquent and passionate way in which he has exposed the problems that his constituents and others in the borough of Wandsworth are facing.
My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the concerns expressed by many organisations who work with local people and see the impact of the cuts that are threatened. He has quoted the concerns of Age Concern, which is appalled by plans to close day centres and sell residential homes without consultation. He has quoted the sad histories of local community centres, including the Balham family centre in his constituency. Vital services are threatened by cuts. He has mentioned many other voluntary organisations, such as arts centres and youth services, which face the prospect of similar damaging cuts. That catalogue of misfortune suffered by the residents of Wandsworth is all the more extraordinary when viewed against the background of the vast sums of public money that have been, and continue to be, lavished on Wandsworth council by the Government.
Let me give some figures. In 1993–94, Wandsworth council received £33.8 million in transitional relief payments to reduce the cost of the council tax. That represented a staggering 25 per cent. of the total transitional relief subsidy made available to the whole of London. Wandsworth, one of 32 London boroughs, received 25 per cent. of the total relief made available in the capital—8 per cent. of the total relief made available to the whole country. Wandsworth does not contain 8 per cent. of the population of the country; it received, in 1993–94, 8 per cent. of the total money made available for transitional relief.
If that were not bad enough, the figures for the current year, 1994–95, are even starker. Although the sums are decreasing, because, as we all know, the transitional relief programme is decreasing, the £22 million that Wandsworth receives in the current year from the Government is no less than 44 per cent. of the total money made available by the Government to local authorities in London to reduce the council tax through transitional relief and about 17 per cent. of the total relief made available to local authorities throughout the country. Wandsworth does not contain 17 per cent. of the

population of Britain, but it receives 17 per cent. of the total sums made available by the Government for council tax transitional relief in the current year.
Taking into account the estimated expenditure next year of a further £12.5 million, a grand total of almost £68 million will have been made available by central government to the London borough of Wandsworth in three years. Currently, the estimates that we can see show that there are approximately 17,000 council tax payers in the highest bands—bands F, G and H—in Wandsworth, who will each have received more than £1,000 in transitional relief in that period. I am talking not about council tax payers in the lower banded properties but about those in the highest banded properties. That is a measure of where that relief is going.
In addition to council tax relief, the Government spent in Wandsworth £26 million in standard spending assessment reduction grant in 1994–95 and will spend a further £21 million in 1995–96. We all know what that is about: a crude process of buying votes, by cushioning Wandsworth residents against the cost of the council tax, when the council had been able to create a position whereby it charged no poll tax at all. Instead of those vast sums of public money—£68 million in transitional relief alone in the three years 1993–94 to 1995–96—being used to help finance desperately needed services in Wandsworth or in the capital's areas of greatest deprivation, they have been used to keep a fundamentally rotten Tory regime in power in Wandsworth council, matching the similar largesse that has been offered by the Government to the similar regime in Westminster.
Let us examine some of the outcomes for Wandsworth residents resulting from that remarkable largesse. What has the borough achieved with its vast slush fund of Government grant? What records does it proudly hold? My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting rightly highlighted the unenviable record that Wandsworth has held for the past two years of having the largest number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast hotels of any London borough. Mercifully, the numbers are decreasing, but at one time a year and a half ago, there were more than 400 families in bed-and-breakfast hotels who had been placed there by Wandsworth council.
Bed and breakfast is symbolic of all that is wrong with current housing policy—unsuitable, cramped, often squalid and unsafe accommodation for homeless families who should be provided with secure, safe homes, and, to add insult to injury, at vast cost to the public.
Do not take my word for it. Let us read the words instead of Councillor Mark Simmonds, then the chair of the housing committee in Wandsworth, who, a year ago, wrote:
The cost to Wandsworth of the 1,300 or so temporary units of accommodation of all types is costing an average of £7,000 per family per year or £9m in total in 1993/94.
What a record. What a waste of public money.
One reason why Wandsworth has had so many homeless families in temporary accommodation is that, as my hon. Friend rightly highlighted, it has deliberately sold off large numbers of council homes, some to existing residents, some on the open market, but with an explicit aim of increasing the number of council leaseholders to match the number of council tenants by the end of the lifetime of the current council.
I wonder why there is that particular target date. I wonder why the end of the lifetime of the current council is the target date for matching the number of leaseholders with council tenants. Could it be anything to do with the borough elections? Could it be anything to do with the election prospects of the current majority party in Wandsworth? One wonders, after hearing so much about the way in which the Tory administration in Westminster has behaved, whether similar motives are driving housing policy in the London borough of Wandsworth.
I have to tell the Tory leadership in Wandsworth that it will have difficulty in achieving its target for two simple reasons. First, market conditions will make it difficult to persuade people to buy homes, not least immediately following a Budget that has cut away the safety net of income support which used to be available to help middle to low-income households, who have bought their homes but are worried that they might run into financial difficulty.
With that safety net gone, with interest rates rising and with the cost of owner-occupation going up because of the withdrawal of MIRAS, prospective home owners and home owners are facing large increased costs next year as a direct result of Government policy. That will frustrate the hopes of the political leaders of the London borough of Wandsworth to secure a sizeable increase in the number of leaseholds.
Those political leaders have also got themselves to blame, not just the Government. Their own performance has aroused a certain amount of local hostility. Once again, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the report on service charges from the director of housing of the London borough of Wandsworth on 27 September this year. With admirable and remarkable tact, he writes:
Members will be aware that an increasing hostility is already being registered to the overall cost and method of provision of these services.
Let me provide one example of why there is that hostility. In late April this year, I visited an elderly lady in Putney who had bought her maisonette in 1988. The right-to-buy offer, which she received from the London borough of Wandsworth—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should stop laughing and listen, because he would then realise one of the sad human consequences of crass Tory policies.
The right-to-buy offer that the lady received specified certain repair costs which she would be due to pay as a result of the repairs to the balconies of the block for which her contribution was assessed at £6,880. As anyone who knows the detailed provisions of right-to-buy legislation will understand, that estimate was covered by the five-year guarantee which safeguards those exercising the right to buy from charges in excess of the estimates over that period.
The lady concerned was told that the works were due to be completed in 1990–91, well within the five-year guarantee period. But, in the event, the works were not carried out in 1990 or in 1991. They were not completed until 1993, just after the five-year guarantee period had expired.
What then happened? Instead of receiving a bill for £6,880, for which the lady had made provision, the unfortunate leaseholder received a bill from the London

borough of Wandsworth for £16,119. She received no apology or explanation. No reason whatever was given for that outrageous increase in costs—just a demand to pay. What an outrage.
Needless to say, when I was given details of that, I took up the matter, first, with the local Member of Parliament and, subsequently, with the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) —a former leader of Wandsworth council with whom I happened to be discussing the matter. He kindly referred it to the council leader, who wrote to me on 25 July. He said that the
case is very well known locally
and
has occupied a very substantial amount of officer time over the past three years.
We wish that the officers had been busy ensuring that the works had been carried out promptly, expeditiously and to budget, rather than pushing paper, as they obviously do a great deal. He continued:
Regrettably, the Council's best efforts have not produced a course of action which would enable the service charge in question to be substantially reduced.
There is no explanation of why not; it simply failed to do it. The council leader continued:
Notwithstanding my above comments, I have asked the appropriate officers to look once again at this case. I will write again in due course.
That is where the matter rests. Five months have passed and I have received no further communication from the leader of Wandsworth council. Nor has the lady concerned received any explanation of the council's outrageous behaviour. All she has received is one further communication increasing the sum demanded from her by the council from £16,119 to £16,674. If that is the way that Wandsworth treats its leaseholders, it is hardly surprising that its director of housing is reporting
an increasing hostility…to the overall cost and method of provision of these services".
I would use slightly more choice language.
Of course, that is not the only example of Wandsworth's gross incompetence, maladministration and shameful failure to look after the interests of local people. Many hon. Members will have memories of other schemes that it has promoted in recent years. Those of us who pass Battersea power station will remember all the pledges given about the great planning scheme to transform it into an Alton Towers-type theme park. We remember that Baroness Thatcher heralded the proposal as a wonderful example of private enterprise and local government working hand-in-hand for the benefit of Britain. It did not turn out that way, did it?
Planning consent was given to Mr. John Broome, who said:
we always deliver what we promise on target".
He predicted the opening of the new theme park at precisely 2.30 pm on 14 May 1990. The appointed hour came and went and, as we all know, Battersea power station remains empty, derelict and deteriorating. It is another monument to Wandsworth's crass incompetence and failure.
I could quote countless other examples of failures by Wandsworth to meet the needs of its residents, of actions that damage the interests of local people and of policies that are damaging to the interests of its community but that it pursues for ideological and dogmatic reasons.
The theme of this debate is the effect of Government policy on local services in Wandsworth. In fact, the relationship between Government policy and Wandsworth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting rightly said, a two-way process. It is a symbiotic relationship in which each party appears to be feeding off each other's prejudices in an attempt to prove that it is the true heir of Baroness Thatcher—hence, returning to housing policy, the extraordinary events of the past year in policy towards the homeless.
Over the past 15 years, the Government have conducted two reviews of their policy on homelessness—the first after 1979, set up by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the second after 1987, set up by the late Lord Ridley and completed by Mr. Patten, currently the Governor of Hong Kong. Both those reviews concluded that part III of the Housing Act 1985 was working reasonably well and that there was no need for change.
Then, for no apparent reason, a year ago the Government suddenly announced that it was time for a fundamental review and a fundamental change of policy. Was it merely a coincidence that that happened at the very moment when the chair of housing in Wandsworth was writing about the need for a radical overhaul of Government policy on homelessness? His paper set out certain objectives: first, that the local authority should provide only assessment and temporary accommodation; secondly, that a regenerated private market should provide longer-term housing with guarantees of benefit or rent and other encouragement needed in the early stages; thirdly, that housing associations should be progressively replaced by the private sector as developers, with financial incentives; and fourthly that long-term rents should move to equalise at a free market level.
Those of us who are rather familiar with those proposals will notice the parallel between the proposals from Wandsworth and the proposals that were published by the Government at the beginning of the year in a consultation paper on changes to the legislation governing homelessness. The Government proposed to end the obligation imposed on councils to secure permanent housing for homeless people. They proposed instead to place homeless families in private lettings. They have also—not in that paper but in their actions—given substantially reduced emphasis to the role of housing associations. They have cut £300 million off the sums available to the Housing Corporation in last year's budget and cut a further £340 million off the Housing Corporation's allocation in the latest budget.
The impact of Government policies on the residents of the London borough of Wandsworth are immensely damaging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting has demonstrated. But equally damaging is the impact of the prejudices of the current political leadership of the London borough of Wandsworth .on the policies of the Government. Happily, we can look forward, on the night when Labour is poised for victory in Dudley, to a speedy end to both the Government and the malign influence of the Wandsworth Tories. Both will be consigned to the political dustbin before long.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Tonight is a historic moment in terms of debates on the Consolidated

Fund. Many hon. Members will miss them, having participated in them over the years at all sorts of hours of the day and night. I certainly remember initiating several such debates. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on having had the fortune to secure a slot on this historic night. It is historic in another sense. It is the first time that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and I have met across the Dispatch Box since my appointment and his and since we turned from our previous relationship as fellow members of the Select Committee on the Environment.
If I may put the debate in context, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently announced the provisional settlement for local authority expenditure for 1995—96. We have considered the demands which will be placed on local authorities, including Wandsworth, next year. We also have to be mindful of the interests of the economy as a whole, and in particular the Government's objective of reducing the public sector deficit. We have considered the level of inflation. It is the lowest it has been for more than a decade. We have also taken into account our policy that increases in pay and prices within the public sector must be met through greater efficiency and economy.
I have no doubt that many authorities have scope to improve their efficiency. Wandsworth, the subject of tonight's debate, has been particularly innovative in this respect. Indeed, I believe that Wandsworth has made savings of some £15 million per annum from competitive tendering of its blue and white collar services. The hon. Member for Tooting said that there were two Wandsworths. I rather agree with him. There is the Wandsworth of Labour demonology, which we have heard about this evening, and the Wandsworth that has won four charter mark awards and is one of only five United Kingdom organisations awarded accreditation for achievements in energy efficiency by the Institute of Energy, an award which, as the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, I certainly applaud. It was also one of the first authorities to publish, in June 1994, its citizens charter performance indicators. Wandsworth was also quoted in a recent independent survey as the London borough offering the best overall telephone services.
To return to this year's local government settlement, the Government's view is that the appropriate level of revenue spending for local authorities in England for 1995–96 will be £43.511 billion. Central Government grant and income from non-domestic rates in support of that expenditure will be more than £34 billion. Those proposals, including provision for community care of £647 million and £50 million for reorganisation costs, provide for a 2.2 per cent. increase in local authority spending year on year, including the spending of police authorities.
Even leaving aside the increase in community care, those proposals amount to an increase in provision of just under 1 per cent. year on year. Of course this year's settlement is tough, but it is entirely consistent with our determination to maintain a firm grip on public spending.
Standard spending assessments were criticised. The indicators used to arrive at the SSA for Wandsworth are the same used for every authority. The fact that neighbouring authorities have higher SSAs than Wandsworth reflects the fact that their needs—as measured by SSA methodology—are perceived as greater.
For 1995–96, we have brought our SSA indicators up to date. That has been particularly beneficial to authorities in inner London because the area cost adjustment for inner-London boroughs has increased. For the first time, we had access to detailed data from the new earnings survey, which enabled us to calculate actual relative wage rates. That data showed an increase in relative average wage rates paid in inner London but a decrease in outer London and in the rest of the south-east. As a consequence, Wandsworth's SSA will increase by 2 per cent. in 1995–96.
Wandsworth's provisional total standard spending assessment for 1995– 96 is a little over £240 million, which is £904 per head—an increase of 2 per cent. over last year and of £18 per head, using adjusted figures, comparing on a like-for-like basis. That increase is not as great as for the average inner-London authority, due mainly due to a small drop in population compared with an increase on average for other London authorities, and fairly static pupil numbers.
In 1994—95 there were significant changes to SSAs because of the incorporation of detailed data from the 1991 census. When we undertake reviews—the hon. Gentleman is familiar with them from our past work together—it is inevitable that changes will occur and that some authorities will lose. In the absence of any special measures, those authorities adversely affected by SSA reductions would have been forced either to make rapid cuts in their budgets or to levy large increases in council taxes. We introduced SSA reduction grant to recognise that such authorities will need time to adjust their spending.
As a result of last year's review of standard spending assessments, Wandsworth's SSA for this year was reduced by more than 10 per cent. That was due largely to the use of 1991 census data, which showed that social conditions in the borough had greatly improved since the last census in 1981—no doubt a result of the energy and effectiveness of the Conservative council. As a consequence of that reduction, Wandsworth received £26.4 million of SSA reduction grant. It will receive a further £21 million from a similar special grant in 1995–96, in respect of those same changes. That will protect council taxpayers from the immediate effects of the 1993 review.
It is clearly for local authorities to determine their spending priorities within the confines of capping. They should have regard to the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing services. If they feel that that is best achieved through partnership with the private sector, that choice is one that we have opened up but are not forcing them to take.
In the same way that local authorities all over the country have been reviewing their provision of care, so too has Wandsworth. That borough and others have done this in the light of the White Paper "Caring for People", which stressed the need for authorities to improve services by working closely with voluntary organisations, private homes and providers to devise imaginative and innovative packages of care for the benefit of care service users and their families.
Wandsworth has obviously taken the decision that it will best be able to maintain its services to the elderly in the area by contracting out this service. I understand that

it has decided to invite offers from independent operators for the running of three old people's homes. It is for each social services committee to decide, in collaboration with other local agencies, on the most appropriate pattern of services to meet the social service care needs of the people in its area. I am sure that Wandsworth reached its decisions having carefully considered the best ways in which to provide services, taking due regard of the need to maximise efficiency.
There are, of course, many independent sector providers with a track record of offering high-quality residential care. It is right that Wandsworth council should seek to utilise further that expertise to the benefit of residents in the borough. Indeed, Quantum Care, which operates in my constituency, is investing in a considerable improvement of the homes in my area and the building of a new one. That must be to the benefit of the people of Hertfordshire. I am sure that it will be welcomed if those skills are also harnessed for the benefit of the people of Wandsworth.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister stressed that it was right for Wandsworth council to reach its decision on the most appropriate way forward. He will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) quoted Age Concern on the point that there had been a total lack of consultation with the organisations representing elderly people in the area and, by implication, with elderly people themselves. Does he really believe that that is an appropriate way in which to proceed?

Mr. Jones: I am rather glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. The hon. Member for Tooting did, indeed, say that there was no consultation, and the hon. Gentleman repeated that later. I have with me—I thought it worth while to study this—the document presented by the director of social services on residential care for elderly people in the borough. It sets out in considerable detail what consultation took place. I shall quote some of it. In the opening part of paragraph 37, the director says:
Full consultation will need to be undertaken with the existing residents and their families and the day centre users and, where appropriate, their carers. A letter has already gone to each resident and his/her next of kin informing them of these proposals.
Paragraph 38 of the report details the fact that letters were sent to the residents of all four homes. Letters were sent to nominated relatives and friends. Letters were sent to day centre users. Letters were sent to relatives of users. A memorandum was sent to the purchasing social work teams telling them about the proposals. There were meetings for day centre users of George Potter house and meetings for residents of George Potter house and their relatives. There was a meeting for the users of Longhedge day centre. I do not want to quote the entire report because it goes on for several pages, describing in considerable detail precisely what consultation took place. It also describes the consultation with staff. Neither the hon. Member for Tooting nor the hon. Member for Greenwich can justify saying that there was no consultation.

Mr. Cox: Can the Minister tell us the date of that report?

Mr. Jones: The report was given to the social services committee on 16 November and to the establishment committee on 22 November.
Wandsworth does not, of course, just get Government funding through the local authority finance settlement. It also receives other forms of Government support, such as £43 million of urban programme resources to date. That has resulted in, to name but two schemes, £400,000-worth of projects on and around the Doddington-Rolls estate and significant environmental improvements to the Tooting, Balham and Clapham junction shopping areas. There is £670,000 from the urban partnership programme for Battersea business 2000—a combination of an adult information technology training and employment guidance centre and a mini-technology park for 12 business units in the IT sector.
There are £2.9 million of single regeneration bid funds over the next three years for the Wandsworth partnership, which is an area-based initiative that focuses on Wandsworth town centre and aims to revitalise the area comprehensively over the next three years. Wandsworth benefits from two other single regeneration budget bids in which it is a partner. One is Wandle strategy, a targeted programme of site preparation and infrastructure improvements to bring forward for redevelopment existing key sites along the Wandle valley. Funding for that will £3.75 million over three years. "Unlocking the Economic Potential of Young People" aims at increasing the competitiveness of the local economy through raising the skill, achievement and qualifications of young people. Funding will be £5.64 million over three years.
The Government have introduced a plan-led system to ensure that individual planning decisions are taken in line with relevant development plan policies. I am pleased that Wandsworth is making good progress with its own unitary development plan, which I understand is due to be adopted today. It will ensure that planning decisions are made on a rational and consistent basis, and help to reduce uncertainty and blight.
Government policy also requires planning applications to be handled efficiently and speedily. Wandsworth is one of the top performers in London in terms of its handling of planning applications: more than 70 per cent. have been decided within the eight-week target in recent months. That has contributed to the authority's being awarded a charter mark for the excellence of its overall delivery of planning services.
I have ranged quite widely in my speech, to give hon. Members an idea of the breadth of Government support for local authorities and the particular impact that it has had in Wandsworth. The proposals in the local government finance settlement represent a balanced and reasonable response to the conflict between the pressure to provide ever-more resources for local government and the need to control public spending. Local government will need to continue to respond imaginatively to the pressure that it faces, just as the private sector has. I am sure that many local authorities could learn from some of the approaches adopted by Wandsworth to ensure that services are provided as cost-effectively as possible.

Cyprus

1 am

Mr. John Marshall: Many years ago, George Bernard Shaw sent Churchill two tickets for one of his plays. He wrote on them, "Winston Churchill and a friend, if he has one." Churchill wrote back saying that he could not go to the first night of the play, but would go to the second night—if there was one.
The purpose of that story, Madam Deputy Speaker—apart from the promise that I gave you over dinner earlier tonight to try to amuse the House for at least 10 seconds—is to reiterate that so long as the current situation in Cyprus continues, there will be a second, a third, a fourth and a fifth night on which the House will debate the issue. Indeed, this is the third occasion in 1994 on which I have raised the Cypriot question in late night, early morning or other "end of term" debates. It is appropriate that we have debated Cyprus on several occasions in 1994, and it is always a pleasure on such occasions when the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) takes part in them. I hope that he will do so briefly tonight.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. It is a tragedy, and shows the failure of the policiesof United Nations states, that we are no nearer a solution in 1994 than we were in 1974. There have been mediators and interlocutors; the United Nations has tried and failed. Not a one square centimetre of territory has been given up by the rulers of northern Cyprus, and the fate of not one missing person has been determined. There has been no indication of any desire for a settlement on the part of the rulers of northern Cyprus.
A commentator writing about Cyprus might refer to the great prosperity of the bulk of the island. Gross domestic product per head has grown from $1,489 in 1973 to $10,430 in 1993, owing to the hard work and resilience of the people of Cyprus. I remember visiting Cyprus in 1977, three years after the invasion, going to a small hotel in Limassol and realising that already, within a relatively short period, the Cypriot tourist industry was being rapidly rebuilt.
Commentators might also refer to the calm within the island. Indeed, only six people have been killed along the green line in recent times. But the fact that there is calm and quiet in Cyprus does not mean that the Cypriots are happy—it means that they grieve in silence.
Many thousands of individuals in Cyprus are unable to live in their own homes which have been in their families for generations. Those individuals are unable to return to their villages or tend the graves of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. They can see their family homes but are unable to live in them. Eighteen months ago I, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and the ex-mayor of Famagusta, who is now in exile, saw the owners of such homes and sensed their anger that they could not live in them. They also knew that their homes might have been requisitioned for Turkish settlers.
Others endure the pain of uncertainty, not knowing what has happened to their loved ones. There are 1,619 missing Cypriots; wives do not know what has happened to their husbands; children do not know what has happened to their fathers; parents do not know what has

happened to their sons. I have here a picture from The Observer showing old ladies wondering what happened to their husbands.
Most of the missing persons were young men. Nine hundred young brides were left not knowing what had happened to their husbands and forced to bring up their children on their own. Not knowing whether their loved ones were dead or alive, they were unable to mourn and unwilling to remarry. It is a tribute to their loved ones that only 24 have remarried since 1974. In 1981, the United Nations set up a committee on missing persons which has not solved one case. Thirteen years on, the committee has not discovered the fate of one person.
Next year, the European Union will be considering the application by Cyprus to become a member. Cyprus' desire to join and become closer to Europe is of long standing. I remember going in 1979 to a place called Charlie's bar in Nicosia, where I talked to members of the Cypriot information office. They said then that they wanted to become closer to Europe and that has been Cyprus' objective ever since. Cyprus has played a major role in western civilisation and it would be wrong for its application to join the European Union to be subject to further delay.
The delay until now has been justified by the fact that the island of Cyprus is divided, but the division of Cyprus should not influence the European Union one iota. If Cyprus were to be told that it could join the European Union only if partition were ended, it would in effect give the Turkish Cypriots a right of veto over whether the legitimate Government of Cyprus were to be allowed into the Union. Historically, East Germany had no right of veto over the application by West Germany to become a founder member of the European Union.
It would surely be wrong for the Government of northern Cyprus, which is not recognised by any Government in the European Union, to be able to prevent the Government of Cyprus, which is recognised by all members of the European Union, from becoming a member. I hope that there will be an early determination of that application.

Mr. Tom Cox: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have the highest regard for him and for his commitment to Cyprus. He makes an important point. Does he agree that the membership of Cyprus would benefit not only northern Cyprus but the Turkish Cypriots who he and I and many other hon. Members believe have as much right as the Greek Cypriots on the island of Cyprus? They have suffered enormously over the past 20 years.

Mr. Marshall: It is a pleasure to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course the benefits would be felt by all the people of Cyprus. It would therefore be to the advantage of the island as a whole if Cyprus became an early member of the European Union. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some good news, if not tonight at least in the near future.
Earlier this year the European Court of Justice ruled that trade between the European Union and northern Cyprus was against the rules of the EU. I hope that that embargo will be strongly enforced, because economic pressure on northern Cyprus may persuade Turkey to reduce its support or to bring pressure to bear on the Government of the north.
It is sad that northern Cyprus has degenerated into nothing better than a client state of Turkey. It has also become a haven for criminals such as Mr. Asil Nadir, who has decided to dodge justice in Britain and now seems to be dodging taxes in Cyprus too. Who knows, the Cypriots may put a little notice on him saying, "Return to sender—unwanted here as well."
In northern Cyprus there has been ethnic cleansing as evil as anything in Yugoslavia. Thousands of Turkish settlers have come in, and there is a Turkish army of 35,000 troops there. That is an amazing situation, with one soldier for every five Cypriots. The United Kingdom equivalent of that that ratio would be an army of occupation with 10 million men. There are more Turkish troops in northern Cyprus than there have ever been British troops in Northern Ireland. Who are they protecting the country against? Does not the fact that so many troops are needed there suggest that there is much unrest?
As The Economist pointed out earlier this year, it is perhaps significant that the standard of living in northern Cyprus is one quarter of that in the rest of the island. Many Turkish Cypriots have demonstrated their despair by emigrating. Thousands have gone to the United Kingdom, to Australia, to Canada, to the United States and even to Turkey.
In the Sunday Times on 17 July there was an interesting article quoting a Turkish Cypriot as saying:
I've come all the way from Melbourne. My mate George gave me that watch. He's a Greek Cypriot. We get on very well over there.
If Greek and Turkish Cypriots can get on very well over there in Australia, in London and in the United States, why can they not have the opportunity to get on well in Cyprus again?
Surely there is something wrong with a country such as northern Cyprus when many of the young choose to emigrate, there is a large army of occupation and tens of thousands of settlers, and the place has made itself into a haven for a fraudster.
On a previous late night parliamentary occasion I made a speech in which I said that I hoped that peace would come to the middle east by means of a series of building blocks, and suggested that Gaza would be one of the first. I believe that that will happen in Cyprus too. There will be a series of building blocks there, and the most obvious of those is, of course, Varosha.
That town was once a Mecca for tourists, a jewel in Cyprus's tourist trade and a home for thousands. Now it is deserted. The hotels were bombed and have collapsed and what was once a centre full of laughter and amusement has only one noise today—the sound of the rats and other wild animals scurrying around. Only sheer unadulterated intransigence prevents Mr. Denktash from agreeing to the return of Varosha. That deprives thousands of people of their homes; it deprives the Cyprus tourist trade of a great opportunity and it deprives the island of Cyprus of the hope of peace.
In the past 10 years we have seen remarkable progress in the world. I remember in a maiden speech talking about the plight of the refuseniks in what was then the Soviet Union. Today, virtually anyone can leave Russia to settle in Israel. The Berlin wall, which was an even more effective barrier than the wall in Nicosia, has disintegrated. We have seen the jackboots of the communists yield to the flame of freedom. In South Africa

we have seen apartheid give way to a multi-racial Government. Who would have guessed five years ago that Mandela and F. W. de Klerk could be part of the same political process?
In the middle east we have seen peace between Israel and Jordan and we have seen Itzhak Rabin and Arafat shake hands on the White house lawn. However, during all that remarkable progress, there has been no movement on the part of the Turkish Cypriots. The fact that it is Turkish Cypriot intransigence that is holding up progress in Cyprus has been confirmed by the United Nations. Earlier this year, Mr. Boutros-Ghali said:
The absence of agreement is due essentially to a lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side.
They hope to institutionalise partition. Many thousands of young Turkish Cypriots have never met a Greek Cypriot. They have only met Turkish Cypriots, Turkish settlers, and Turkish troops. There must be a danger that the longer that situation prevails, the more difficult it is to reach a conclusion.
The Turkish Cypriots today are subject to the same religious intolerance that hit this country during the reformation and which was still alive in this country in the 1960s. I well remember the first election campaign that I fought. I knocked on the door of a house in Bridgeton in Glasgow and said that I was the Conservative council candidate. The person said that it was very nice to see a Conservative candidate, "We've not done that for a long time." The next question was, "What's your religion?" I thought very carefully. I did not think that I should say Church of England as I was standing in Glasgow, so I said, "Episcopalian. Is that all right?" The answer was,"That's fine, because we're Christians and we can't vote for a Catholic."
That was the kind of intolerance that prevailed in Glasgow as late as 1963. That intolerance is magnified 1,000 times over in northern Cyprus simply because the people of northern Cyprus are inward looking and do not have the opportunity to meet Greek Cypriots. That makes it that much more difficult to solve the problem in the longer term.
In this House, we must commit ourselves to continuing to provide the oxygen of publicity. We must press the Government to indicate their agenda for action. We must show that we want an early decision on the application by Cyprus to join the European Union. Above all, we must assure the people of Cyprus that they will not be ignored and that we will continue to fight for them until once again democracy and freedom prevail right across that island.

Ms Joyce Quin: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on winning a place in the ballot and on introducing the debate. Both he and I wish that he had managed to acquire a more prime time slot for his debate—

Mr. John Marshall: And the Minister.

Ms Quin: Indeed. We all share that feeling. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman also on his assiduity and his determination to give the issue, as he said, the oxygen of publicity. He also introduced a similar debate in July.
I pay tribute to certain hon. Friends who have also been assiduous in drawing the attention of the House to the issue. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and to some of my hon. Friends who spoke in the July debate—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and others.
I shall be brief because of the hour and also, as hon. Members can probably hear, because of the state of my health. Unfortunately, I am suffering from a heavy cold.
I come fairly new to the subject; I do not share many hon. Members' personal knowledge of Cyprus, and I do not have many constituents of Cypriot origin. However, when reading briefs and previous debates, it struck me that there has been a lack of progress, about which I am sure that hon. Members are very sad. The hon. Member for Hendon, South was right to mention the number of people living in Britain and in Cyprus who have had their lives blighted by the tragic events in Cyprus. I refer, for example, to the uncertain fate of the people of Cyprus, and to people who have lost their homes and families. Although "ethnic cleansing" is a relatively new expression, it is sadly not a new phenomenon and it has certainly applied to Cyprus and elsewhere.
Since the July debate, there have been few significant developments. Indeed, the developments that have taken place have tended to give even fewer grounds for optimism. I have been staggered by the immigration into Turkish Cyprus from the Turkish mainland, and at the number of Cypriots who have left Turkish Cyprus who felt that they did not want to have their future in that part of a segregated island.
I note also that in August controversial resolutions were passed by the assembly of the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus to co-ordinate its defence and foreign policies with those of Turkey and to reject a federal solution to the Cyprus question. There have been meetings between President Klerides and Mr. Denktash, but although they were held in an effort to restart the stalled peace process, they have achieved very little indeed.
I note also that a United Nations resolution asked the Secretary-General, in consultation with the parties involved, to submit by the end of October 1994 a programme for achieving a comprehensive settlement. I do not know what progress was made by the Secretary-General in that task, but perhaps the Minister will update us on that matter. Bearing in mind what has happened, one is tempted to agree with the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Cypriot Government. He said that, if anything, they are in an even less satisfactory position than before. That is of great regret to all hon. Members.

Mr. Cox: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Opposition Front Bench and to her responsibilities in respect of Cyprus. Even though the debate is sparsely attended, my hon. Friend is aware of cross-party agreement on Cyprus. Will she make a clear statement on the embargo imposed by the European Union regarding exports of products from northern Cyprus? Many Cypriots believe that it is crucial in

applying essential pressure on Mr. Denktas so that he will enter meaningful discussions regarding the Secretary-General's efforts.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The embargo is an important way of putting pressure on the Turkish Cypriots and Mr. Denktash and his followers. However, given the statistics that the hon. Member for Hendon, South provided about the existing economic disparity between the Turkish and Greek parts of the island, an embargo might worsen the country's economic situation.
Although very little progress has been made in reaching a settlement in recent years, one or two of Mr. Denktash's comments have revealed a few glimmers of hope. It seems as though he is trying to soften his position, perhaps partly because of the effect of the embargo to which my hon. Friend referred.
Another important issue referred to by the hon. Member for Hendon, South is Cyprus's application to join the European Union. Labour has consistently supported the line that the hon. Gentleman advanced about the timing of the application and the fact that it should not be held up awaiting a settlement of the dispute over the division of Cyprus. Progress with the application could bring about the desired settlement.
The Government have sent out confusing signals about the matter, with the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister of State making slightly different statements in the past year about how much a decision on Cyprus's application will depend on the progress that is made in resolving the dispute between the two parts of the island. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that confusion in his reply to the debate tonight. In so doing, we hope that he will agree with us and with his hon. Friend who introduced the debate.
In a recent communication, the Commission said that it could foresee no economic problems for either of the Mediterranean applicants for European Union membership— Malta and Cyprus. That is a very important statement because it means that, at least as far as economic issues are concerned, Cyprus should be able to make progress towards a successful application.
The enlargement of the European Union to include Malta and Cyprus has political benefits for the Union as a whole. France, Spain, Italy and the other Mediterranean countries are keen to see the European Union accept Cyprus and Malta as members because they feel that it will provide a geographical balance to the also very welcome moves to open up the Union to the countries of eastern Europe. We obviously look forward to the Minister's reply, and I hope that he will refer to that point.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South talked about the extraordinary changes that we have witnessed in recent years. He mentioned the end of the cold war and the changing situations in the middle east and in South Africa. He could also have mentioned the hope for a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. There have been momentous changes—I am almost tempted to refer to an extraordinary change in a certain by-election result tonight, which is very welcome on the Opposition side of the House.
It is heartening that such changes are occurring, but I join the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends in hoping that there will be a similar momentous change in the form


of a resolution of the Cyprus problem. That is a process in which Britain is honour bound to play a full and major part.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I join other Members who have spoken in the debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on gaining the debate in what is, I think, historically the last of these occasions in quite this form. I also congratulate him on his determination and perseverance on the issue of Cyprus over some time.
I shall endeavour to answer all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ms Quin), but I shall not resolve all the problems of Cyprus this evening. I have sympathy with her about her cold—we share the House of Commons virus this evening.
Cyprus is important to the United Kingdom. Our countries are bound, as we have heard, by a shared history and personalities and common political interests. Our common history gives us shared values and outlooks, and we are bound together in the Commonwealth. Cyprus is one of the major British tourist destinations, and the integration of Cypriots in Britain—especially here in London—proves the closeness of the relationship. It is also fair to say that our two sovereign bases in Cyprus are strategically important to Britain, as was demonstrated clearly during the Gulf war.
Those connections mean that the estrangement of the two communities which lead to the events of 1974 was viewed with great distress in the United Kingdom. We do believe that the division of Cyprus since 1974 is unacceptable, and any subsequent settlement cannot be based on division. The passage of time will not, as some hope, lead us to accept it.
What are we and the international community doing to solve the apparently intractable problem? We have always supported the effort of the UN Secretary-General to broker a settlement. I should like briefly to set out the course of his efforts this year. At times this year progress seemed close—as the hon. Lady intimated earlier—but at other times it seemed much more distant.
Last year, President Klerides accepted a package of confidence-building measures proposed by the UN Secretary-General. We thought that the package was an excellent basis for getting talks going. We were therefore disappointed that Mr. Denktash was not able to match President Klerides's acceptance, and did not return to New York to continue negotiations.
Sadly, as the UN Secretary-General concluded in his report to the Security Council on 30 May, the Turkish Cypriot side had not demonstrated sufficient political will to secure agreement on the implementation of the package of confidence building measures. The Secretary-General's report of 30 May was in itself an important development. It encouraged Mr. Denktash, with some prompting from Turkey, the UN, the United States and the UK, to shift his position. He moved far enough for the Secretary-General to conclude in his letter to the President of the Security Council on 28 June that there was a substantial measure of agreement on the substance of the package, and that he was prepared to recommend its acceptance.
The letter demonstrated how close the two sides had come to agreement. We should not lose sight of that. We strongly believe that the potential benefits, both in real economic terms and more importantly in terms of intercommunal contact and confidence building, are so great that further effort is worth while. That is not the view of the United Kingdom alone; it is shared by the whole Security Council.
We think that building up confidence is essential if a lasting settlement is to be achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, there were once extensive and friendly day-to-day contacts between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. Now a generation has grown up on each side of the divide, suspicious of, but knowing little of, the other community.
On 29 July, the UN Security Council responded to the developments which I outlined by passing resolution 939. The resolution called for further work on confidence-building measures, and also included language on the overall approach. It called for reflection on other ways of making progress towards a settlement.
I see the resolution as an opportunity for the communities to reaffirm their commitment to essential central principles for a settlement. The Secretary-General gave effect to the second aspect of resolution 939 by inviting the two community leaders to talks with his representative in Cyprus. Those discussions took place between 18 and 31 October. We welcome that approach.
The hon. Member for Gateshead asked me about the action plan of those two communities. She is right to say that that was not forthcoming, but the Secretary-General is preparing a report, including an action plan. He is continuing to pursue his activities on that front.
No progress was made, regrettably, at the round of talks in October. Both leaders sought to press their own agenda and there was little overlap. Mr. Denktash did reaffirm his commitment, however, to a bizonal, bi-communal federation, as called for by the UN. He has subsequently emphasised that in a letter to the Secretary-General. President Klerides had some useful and positive ideas relating to future constitutional arrangements. The UN is continuing its own discussions with the two leaders with a view to establishing a common basis for further discussions. We support that and hope that it will be possible to restart direct talks soon.
I have described our view of where things stand, but what of our approach? We want to help to bring about a settlement: there is no other agenda. The overriding consideration is that we should support the good offices mission of the UN Secretary-General, set up following UN Security Council resolution 367 in March 1975. Our status as a guarantor power, however, means that we try to do more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South correctly pointed out. We aim to complement as well as to support Mr. Boutros-Ghali's mission, while sticking, of course, to the UN framework.
I should make it clear that we are not in the business of prescribing the details of a settlement. In our view, a settlement must meet the interests of both communities and have their agreement. The history of the dispute, and others, shows that a settlement imposed without such an


agreement will not last. We consider, however, that the UN Secretary-General's set of ideas, first proposed in 1992, provide a good basis for settlement.

Mr. Cox: I am one of the United Kingdom delegates to the Council of Europe. Lord Finsberg—we all know that he was a Member of the House for many years—serves on the Political Affairs Committee of the Council. He has prepared the Finsberg report on Cyprus, which will be presented at the next major session of the Council at the end of January 1995. Will we get clear outline of the Government's opinion on that report before it is presented to the Council? I have met President Klerides to discuss the report and I know that the Greek Cypriots are unhappy about many aspects of it. We need some clarification of the Government's opinion of that report, which has been prepared by a member of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe.

Mr. Davis: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an instant answer. Matters will develop in January, because other issues are in play.
We are not talking about a settlement between two separate countries divided by a border. We want a settlement that will allow the communities to live side by side on a small island, in the same federal state, in peace. That can be achieved only with their agreement and when the two communities feel that the terms of the settlement will guarantee their future safety and interests. Bullying will not work.
I stress that there is no question of our recognising the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus—not now, not in the future. If we are to be effective in encouraging a settlement, however, we must speak to both communities. Refusal to deal with one community would make it less willing to deal. It would make a settlement harder to achieve. We therefore maintain contact with Mr. Denktash and others who are prominent in the Turkish Cypriot community. Our sole aim in doing so is to encourage the Turkish Cypriot community to move towards a settlement. We are determined that those contacts should continue.
We also want to promote contact between the communities. Our high commissioner in Nicosia, and, indeed, some members of those communities, try to promote that contact. They need encouragement, not criticism for doing so. That is crucial. Those who criticise such contacts undermine the chances of an approach agreed by both sides. The logical extension of criticising contacts with one or other side is that a solution should be imposed against the will of one community. I have always said that an imposed solution will not work.
We see our role as encouraging the two communities to move towards a settlement, by persuading and encouraging them and the other guarantor powers, and fostering the right environment for negotiations. Our substantial diplomatic effort and intensive contacts play a part in this process. That effort is supported by our contribution to the UN force in Cyprus, known as UNFICYP. The force has a mandate to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order, and a return to normal conditions. It plays an important part in creating the stability and security that are necessary for a settlement. We have played a major role in UNFICYP through thick and thin. We believe that our

commitment—one of successive Governments and successive generations of British taxpayers—has been an important factor in securing the success of the United Nations military operation in Cyprus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and others have talked about European Union accession. We share the hope that the prospect will bring the communities together. Perhaps I should set out our approach. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) hit the point rather well.
We support membership of the Community for those European countries that want to join and can meet all the conditions of membership. Cyprus applied to join the European Union in July 1990. The European Commission submitted its opinion on the application of Cyprus in June 1993. The opinion confirmed the European identity and character of Cyprus and its vocation to belong to the Union.
The opinion recognised the difficulties of accession ahead of an intercommunal settlement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
We want to remove those difficulties; we want to see Cyprus admitted. That is one reason … why we, perhaps more than any other country, are working … hard to find a solution … Our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles to the accession of Cyprus."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 702.]
The Commission has considered developments in the intercommunal talks. It has decided to review the question of the accession of Cyprus to the Community next month—January. At the European Council at Corfu in June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed conclusions which noted that
the next phase of enlargement would involve Cyprus".
That approach was reaffirmed at Essen with our support. It is too early to talk about precise dates for accession, or for the opening of negotiations about it, but that does not discriminate against Cyprus.
It is too early to talk about dates for any of the countries involved in the next phase of enlargement, which will not take place before the intergovernmental conference, which starts in 1996, has reached a conclusion. Even though there are difficulties, it is important to emphasise that neither Mr. Denktash nor anyone else has a veto over Cyprus's application. The Commission opinion was carefully drafted on this point.
We should be wary, however, of seeing the prospect of membership as a panacea. We cannot ignore Turkish Cypriot concerns about the prospect of Cypriot membership of the European Union. Some Turkish Cypriots question the validity of the application. Others are concerned that the terms of membership might conflict with elements of a settlement that they regard as essential. Others worry about its effect on their relationship with Turkey. In our view—again, I take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Tooting—the EU has much to offer both communities. Membership of the EU is not something that either community should fear. We are encouraging Turkish Cypriots to think hard about the benefits of EU membership.
The solution to the Cyprus problem lies in the hands of the communities themselves. It is not in the power of the UK or the EU, or the UN, to force a workable solution in Cyprus on those who live there. Progress can be made only with the full backing of both communities. Agreement depends on the will of the two communities, helped and guided by their friends. I know that that will


has often been lacking, but that is no reason not to continue probing persuading and encouraging. The status quo is no solution.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I apologise to the House for arriving now and being unable to hear the speeches of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), my other colleagues and the Minister. We were expecting the debate to take place somewhat later, but I understand that matters have progressed rather rapidly.
I am delighted that we have had an opportunity—I was going to say this evening, but I perhaps should say this night or this morning—to debate Cyprus, which all of us who are in the Chamber tonight will agree is one of the outstanding issues in the world that need to be resolved.
The debate takes place against a background of great sadness for the Cypriot community in this country, in that this week, sadly, the death occurred of Dr. Homer Habibis, who was one of the leading figures in the Cypriot community in Britain for many years. He was a great man, whose qualities as a community leader, a professional man and a doctor were widely respected. He is mourned, not only by the Cypriot community but by his many friends in Britain, and especially by all those people who support the cause of Cyprus. He will be greatly missed.
This week, a tremendous reception was held in the House, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is in his place this evening, and attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who speaks on foreign affairs from the Opposition Front Bench. That reception, which was a timely reminder, was about and for an association of organisations for refugees.
Many Cypriots came to this country as a result of the invasion and the continuing occupation of 1974. When we discuss Cyprus, we should always speak of the events in 1974 as an invasion. They were not an intervention but an invasion, and what has happened is a continuing occupation. It is very important that we speak in those terms.

Mr. Cox: I welcome the contribution that my hon. Friend has made, and also her warm and moving tribute to Dr. Homer Habibis, whom many of us knew, greatly respected and loved.
My hon. Friend mentioned refugees. Does she agree that, in the Greek Cypriot community, there is what I would call a "gut feeling" that a settlement should allow people, for example, from Morphou, to return to their homes if they so wish? The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has repeatedly referred to Verosha—Famagusta—but there is also Kyrenia.
I congratulate the Minister on the constructiveness of his speech, but we must be able tell both communities in a settlement that they will have the right to move anywhere, and live anywhere, on the island of Cyprus. I am sure that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and the hon.

Member for Hendon, South will accept that, unless we can say that, we shall be unable to surmount an enormous hurdle.

Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been campaigning on that issue for many years.
It is an absolute right that refugees should be able to return to their home. Many members of the Cypriot community have come to this country, and very many people who remain in Cyprus are refugees in their own island—their own country. One of the reasons is that the democratic republic of Cyprus has been extremely successful in building a vibrant modern economy, and it has managed to deal with its refugees extremely well. There are no refugee camps or anything of that nature. Therefore, people often ask why the refugees want to return to their homes. The answer is simple: for all those refugees, the place where their fathers and mothers, grandparents and great grandparents lived has tremendous historical and emotional significance.
Many Cypriots cannot return to their homes or visit family homes or graveyards. One of the terrible things that has happened in the illegally occupied area of the north has been the complete destruction and desecration of places of religious significance which also have great significance to western culture. That is extremely dangerous to the cultural map of a place that is essentially part of Europe. We must take that seriously in all our arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned Morphou. Like him, I have been to the Morphou rally which every year is a focus for the refugee community for the whole island. People gather for a demonstration which is extremely moving. I have marched with them. One can see the occupied area. First, there is the Unified Nations buffer zone and then people can see their land. I have been there with Cypriots who have pointed their houses out to me. They can smell and see their orange groves. The feeling is so apparent that no one can remain untouched by what they see and experience.
The last time that I went to Morphou was with a number of hon. Members. I was met at the airport by the mayor of Morphou, who extended very pleasant greetings. He said something that had tremendous significance for me. He said that one day he would meet me at the airport and take me not to Nicosia but to his home in Morphou. That was his dream and that was very important to him.
There are a couple more issues of which we should never lose sight. The first is the fate of the missing people, those people of whom we have heard nothing since 1974. I am sure that much reference has already been made to those people in the House. I have constituents who have not seen or heard of their relatives since 1974. Each time I go to the Morphou rally, I am met by the same elderly lady who shows me a wonderful photograph of her handsome young son whom she has not seen since those terrible events in 1974. That is something that we must keep dear to our hearts.
We must also realise what it means to the Cypriot people to have what is basically an occupying force in their own land. In addition, settlers have come into the occupied areas quite illegally. We must bear that in mind when we discuss the issue. We have a tremendous opportunity in the House to give Cyprus a pledge that Britain and the British Government will support Cyprus's application to join the European Union.
I caught only the last of the Minister's remarks when he spoke about the solution to the Cyprus problem being in the hands of the two communities. But, with respect, if one goes down that road, one is entering dangerous territory. It is a great mistake to view the Cyprus conflict as one between two different communities. It must not be viewed in that way. The Cyprus conflict is clear. It is a conflict between a democratic country which is a member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth and an illegal regime which is recognised by no one except Turkey.
Britain, as a guarantor power, has a unique role to play, especially through its relationship with the United States—a country that could do much good in the region. Also, as a guarantor power, Britain could have tremendous influence in pressing Cyprus's case. I say in all sincerity to the Minister that if the Government are concerned about finding a solution to the Cyprus problem, the best action they could take would be to hasten Cyprus's admission to the European Union. That is where it belongs; if it were a member, it would be impossible for Cyprus to remain divided.
Cyprus is a thriving country with a tremendous amount to offer Europe. It has a marvellous heritage and a marvellous people with a variety of talents, skills and ability. We must solve the problem of the continuing scandal of that divided island. It is an outrage that, as 1994 draws to a close, a year in which we have solved so many of the world's outstanding problems, we still have not solved the Cyprus problem. The blame for that must be firmly placed on Mr. Denktas and his illegal regime and on the Turkish Government for not ensuring that proper pressure is applied. We can look for Turkey's motives in that. We must make it clear to Turkey that we disapprove of not only what is happening in Cyprus but its appalling human rights record.
Let us talk not about an intra-communal dispute in Cyprus but about Mr. Denktas, his illegal regime and the way that he has blocked any constructive moves. Let us say that in 1995 we will do all that we can to ensure that there is a just and lasting solution to Cyprus.

Anglo-American Mutual Defence Agreement

Mr. Alan Simpson: I wish to put on record my gratitude to Madam Speaker for arranging for at least an airing of this matter in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I had hoped that the Government would raise it in Government time, at a slightly more popular hour, but perhaps it is more fitting that it should go through the House in the dead of night.
I am disappointed with the way in which the extension of the mutual defence agreement has been handled and I want to mention some of the features of the debate—or non-debate—about it. Had the Government had their way, the agreement would have passed us by without any debate. It was laid formally on the Table on 21 October and, under the Ponsonby rules, would have been left there for 21 working days and then ratified without debate in the House.
Although the draft agreement laid by the Government was brief, half-way down the front page it said that the agreement had already passed through the American Congress on 23 May 1994. A number of hon. Members have already questioned why the matter has been delayed in Britain until now. The explanation lies somewhere between cock-up and contempt. The cock-up part of the explanation is, I am told, that the agreement was lost somewhere within the Foreign Office. Fairly late in the proceedings it was hastily retrieved from the other side of the Atlantic.
I should also point out that, among the other points of difference in the way in which the matter was processed, was the fact that when the agreement went through Congress it had been laid before both the Congress and the Senate for 60 days. That certainly has not been the case in the United Kingdom Parliament.
The agreement expires at the end of this month. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have much longer to wait before this part of this Session of Parliament finishes. It would be extremely embarrassing, although not fatal for its renewal, if the agreement were not signed before it expired and had to be re-signed as a renegotiated agreement. However, that has not happened. I picked the matter up only on the last day on which, under the Ponsonby rules, the agreement was formally to lie to on the Table.
I had an interesting time trying to get copies of the original agreement. I found that it was much easier to get access to it through sources in the United States. For the record, we ought to recognise what the agreement sets out. The formal title is:
An agreement for the co-operation in the uses of atomic energy for atomic energy for mutual defence purposes.
It commits both the United States and the United Kingdom to communicate and exchange information and transfer materials and equipment to the other party for their mutual defence and security. There is specific focus on the nuclear arms programme. The agreement refers to the exchange of information, which would include
classified information, sensitive nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information, as is jointly determined to be necessary".
It covers the "development of defence plans", the


training of personnel in the employment of atomic weapons and defence against them, other military applications of atomic energy … the development of delivery systems compatible with those atomic weapons and research, development and design of military reactors".
There is fairly comprehensive coverage of the areas in which exchange of information and personnel will take place. It is difficult, though, to find out the implications of the agreement. In fact, it has been extremely difficult and well nigh impossible in some cases, for Parliament to find out anything about it since it was originally signed in 1958.
I was intrigued by the use of the Ponsonby rule. Perhaps I can clarify how and why it has been used. The Minister replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 30 November, simply formally recording that the 1994 amendment was laid before Parliament on 21 October and that the Ponsonby rule required it to remain there for 21 days before it could be ratified.
The normal procedure under the Ponsonby rule is that if there is an objection, the matter is brought before the House. The briefing note given to Members of Parliament about the matter clarifies that that is not an obligation but a custom. It also says:
There is no presumption that Parliament will debate every treaty laid under the Ponsonby rule, but once Parliament has been presented with the text of an important or controversial treaty, it is difficult in practice for the Leader of the House to resist a debate on it. Indeed, Ponsonby's original announcement included the promise that 'If there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the treaty in question.' Consequently, it may be said that any controversial treaty which requires ratification is as likely to be debated in the House of Commons as in other comparable Parliaments.
I hope that I will make it clear that that is not what happens. Parliament is systematically deceived and has been so ever since the first signing of the agreement. The systematic and consistent refusals by the Leader of the House to hold a full debate before Parliament in Government time are part of a process which goes back almost 40 years.
The letter from the Leader of the House states:
Neither the 1958 agreement itself nor the amendment now under consideration involves any financial commitment by the UK or entails any obligation to purchase goods or services from the United States. The servicing, maintenance, operation and decommissioning costs of the Trident programme are determined by separate agreements.
Strictly speaking, it may be accurate to describe the situation that way, but it is also economical with the truth. The way in which the matter has been dealt with in the American Congress reveals a markedly different picture of the practical and financial implications of the agreement into which the UK entered all those years ago.
I am grateful to others who have raised the issue in the past—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in a debate on 21 December 1981. In it he said:
I am deeply embarrassed by the possibility that plutonium provided by the British civil nuclear power programme might be contributing to that weapons drive.
He was referring to the rapid expansion of the American nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s, and added:
That contribution will remain real whether the plutonium that we send is used directly for one of the 14,000 nuclear warheads or merely used indirectly to start the Clinch River fast breeder, and

thereby to free stocks of plutonium for the weapons programme that would otherwise have been used to start the fast breeder reactor."—[Official Report, 21 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 733–4.]
The years since then have produced a realisation that the agreement provided significant, core underpinning of precisely that expansion of the American nuclear weapons programme. There is substantial evidence that there has been crossover from the civil plutonium produced in the UK to the American nuclear weapons programme.
My hon. Friend received limited answers. I was shocked to have had it confirmed by the Library that the signing of the original agreement was never formally announced to Parliament. In the United States, the agreement's terms and implications were the subject of four months of detailed formal hearings by Congress. Yet the UK Parliament was denied any access to the agreement or any scrutiny or discussion of its implications. That is a dreadful indictment of Parliament's role in determining the ethical if not legal acceptability of agreements and treaties which the UK enters into. The public and Parliament were deceived over the signing of both the original agreement and its extension now.
The House was never told either that there were additional details of the agreement which have never been acknowledged by the Government. On 28 November 1979, one of the congressional records—a message from Jimmy Carter, the then President of the United States, to the Congress of the United States—simply said:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress the text of an amendment to the agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes of 3 July 1958, as amended … The joint classified and unclassified memorandums, which provide summary analysis of the amendment, are also enclosed.
Those documents were supplied to the US Congress. Under the American Freedom of Information Act, it has been possible to get access to that annexe.
My excitement about the annexe quickly dissipated when I discovered that, although people have access to it, this comes in a form that is described as "sanitised"—and it certainly is. The document is entitled
The technical annexe to the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America for co-operation on the use of atomic energy and mutual defence purposes of July 3rd 1958".
The title is followed by nine pages, all of which are blank apart from three, which have just titles at the top.
I am not complaining that the full details of the technical annexe are not available. What concerns me is that the British Government have never even admitted that such an annexe exists. The information about it has systematically been kept from Parliament and there has been no discussion about the implications it might have for the governance and defence of the United Kingdom.
The Leader of the House, when he wrote to me, said that this was not a matter which should concern us because it was a "nil-cost" agreement. I was fascinated to discover, though, that there are substantial costs. It is a matter of how the costs are dealt with rather then whether they exist. I am especially indebted to Greenpeace which has done a phenomenal amount of work in bringing this


information to light in the United Kingdom—information which has been more readily available in the United States.
It is worth putting the transactions on record and then looking at the resultant costs. It is true that the agreement does not oblige the United Kingdom to purchase goods from the United States, but in that sense, it is a bit like a hire purchase agreement. It costs nothing to sign a hire purchase agreement; it is only when one starts to acquire goods under it that the costs begin. As a result of the American Freedom of Information Act, I was able to clarify that, between 1959 and 1978, the UK Government spent a total of 6.6 million on materials purchased under the agreement. The annual cost was $350,000 dollars. In addition, it is acknowledged that there is to be built into the account the costs of staff in London and Washington who are dedicated to handling material and information transfers. There are at least 10 such staff simply doing the administration. There is also the cost of visits to US facilities to obtain information which has to be accounted for.
I am sorry to go into acronyms at this stage, but there are two areas to which specific costs relate. One is the jowogs—the joint working groups. These are groups of scientists and experts who work on a variety of detailed technical exchanges in relation to the nuclear defence programme. As I understand it, there are at least 40 such jowogs in operation. They cover such subjects as neutron sources, high explosives for nuclear weapons, computational methods and procedures, metallurgy of weapons materials—that is, plutonium research—non-nuclear components, non-metallic materials, weapons physics, tritium technology, the spread of nuclear contamination, the joint use of test facilities, procedures and techniques for the manufacture, inspection, testing and acceptance of materials and weapons assemblies, existing and proposed Polaris warheads, the Polaris joint re-entry system working group, the strategic weapon test group and the joint United States-United Kingdom financial management working group. If there are no financial implications, it seems somewhat bizarre to set up a financial management working group.
We have also acquired equipment. We have acquired a series of items over the past 10 years which includes components such as velocity sensing devices, tritium gas reservoirs, timers, specially designed hardware items, structural components, by-product and unfabricated special nuclear materials such as plutonium, normal or depleted uranium and thorium, testing and handling equipment for nuclear weapons, swapped nuclear test debris samples and components used in the fusing, firing and making safe of British nuclear weapons—including switches, relays, cables, printed circuits, batteries and irradiated vacuum tubes. Those items have all been exchanged under the agreement.
I was fascinated to know how and why those exchanges would take place at nil cost. The description suggests the sort of homely exchange that takes place on the porch at the end of a long sunny evening, when people are just swapping tales. The practicalities of the agreement, however, are far removed from that. They relate to practical exchanges of information, resources and hardware that are essential parts of the nuclear weapons programmes of both America and the United Kingdom.
The details of how the agreement was to be financed were never presented to the House. Some were set out in a book by John Simpson, who is neither a relative of mine nor a newscaster, but who was a special adviser to the Palme commission and a member of the UN secretary-general's expert group on conventional disarmament. In "The Independent Nuclear State", he wrote:
It was planned that the Atomic Energy Commission would create a $200 million revolving fund to finance the Anglo-American trade in fissile materials, though the precise mechanism envisaged remains somewhat obscure. There is a strong suggestion that the money was initially to be lent to Britain, which would then use it to pay for some or all of the enriched uranium and tritium purchased from the AEC prior to 1964. Receipts for this transaction would then be used to purchase plutonium produced in Britain. This procedure would have the effect of making the transaction a virtually cost-free exercise for the United Kingdom Government.
The exercise may be cost-free in a strict accounting sense, but it is a version of the Asil Nadir approach to accounting for exchanges, which I find extremely dubious. Again, though, the House was never told that such a fund was being set up by the United States to allow the United Kingdom to purchase materials, and to have the plutonium purchased back in what would appear to be a nil-cost transaction.
If that sum existed in 1964, does it still exist now? Will the Minister tell us whether it has moved with the retail prices index? If so, we are talking about a sum that must now be in the region of $1 billion—not insignificant in anyone's accounting terms.
I also wondered about the sort of materials which were involved in the exchange. I am grateful to the United States Natural Resources Defence Council, which managed to establish the current volume of exchange—the "shopping basket"—between the United Kingdom and the United States, through to 30 December 1994. The United States estimated that the following quantities would be exchanged in each calendar year: 500 kg of normal or depleted uranium, 100 kg of thorium, 200 g each of other source, by-product and unfabricated special nuclear materials. In addition, there would be an exchange of "test equipment". The one item that was deleted by-the American vetting system was the specific details of the amount of plutonium that was part of the exchange. Clearly, however, plutonium was the other component of that exchange.
For a long time, the Government attempted to say that the plutonium was part of the nuclear weapons programme and that there was no prospect of any plutonium produced in civil nuclear reactors being part of a weapons programme, either directly or indirectly. However, on 4 July this year my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent asked a written question to which the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement replied:
The 1962 test confirmed the technical feasibility of constructing a nuclear explosive device using reactor-grade plutonium. This fact was declassified by the United States in 1977. There are, though, significant technical difficulties which would complicate the manufacture and storage of any weapon based on reactor-grade plutonium.
In a second written answer, my hon. Friend was told:
The assurance given in 1964 by the United States Government to the United Kingdom Government, that plutonium produced in the United Kingdom civil reactors and supplied to the United States under the 1958 agreement would not be used for weapons purposes, remains valid."—[Official Report, 4 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 82–3.]
These seem to be completely contradictory statements.
The United States admitted on 27 June this year that it had used civil plutonium in a nuclear explosion. What we do not know is how many other nuclear explosions were conducted using civil plutonium. We know only that it is now accepted that that happens and that the UK objections are technical rather than ethical. I must say that I think that the ethical aspect is much more important than the technical one because it raises important questions about the integrity of the United Kingdom's civil nuclear programme and that of any commitments that we make about the use of plutonium in the production of nuclear weapons.
We also know from our own UK sources that the United Kingdom has produced some 80,000 kg of plutonium—enough to make 20,000 nuclear bombs. However, we have no account of the plutonium transfers between the United Kingdom and the United States. We have no knowledge of how many of those transfers involved civil nuclear materials, or how much of that plutonium was used in the American nuclear weapons programme.
Many hon. Members have become increasingly disturbed about the dishonesty of the United Kingdom's approach to signing, conducting and sustaining an agreement which may well have a destabilising rather than stabilising effect on global and international relations.
I remind the House of a comment made on 13 May 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He said:
The biggest cover-up of all, for which I shall never forgive those responsible, was that throughout the period when I was Minister, plutonium from our atoms-for-peace reactors was going to America to make bombs and warheads that would return to American bases here. That view has been confirmed by Ministers in this Government. I was cross-examined about it at the Sizewell inquiry, and only recently has it been admitted that the atoms-for-peace power stations are in reality bomb factories for the United States"—[Official Report, 13 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 612.]
The scale of that bomb-making process has never been admitted. The only estimate that I could come across was in the technical annexe to the book by John Simpson, in which the author said that the initial view of the United States was that it would acquire a maximum of 6,500 kg of plutonium from Britain to support its nuclear programme. The House has never been given any confirmation of how much plutonium the United Kingdom has supplied to the United States as part of the agreement. I now formally ask the Minister to tell the House what congressional committees have almost certainly been told in the United States. The House has a right to know what scale of plutonium exchanges this country has been involved in as a result of the obligations entered into as part of the agreement.
Some enormous implications follow from the way in which the agreement has been signed, conducted, sustained—and now, possibly, renewed. The first implication relates to the non-proliferation treaty, and the conference on its extension that will begin in April next year.
Many of us have long argued that Britain is in breach of articles I and VI of the non-proliferation treaty. The Trident programme is almost certainly an act of nuclear proliferation. Everyone outside the United Kingdom acknowledges the fact that the massive increase in the

nuclear warheads available to this country puts us in breach of those articles. Also, specifically, the agreement appears to put us in breach of article I.
It is worth reminding the House what article I says:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly".
Yet that is precisely what the agreement sets out to do.
The agreement also puts us in breach of article VI, which reminds us of our further obligations:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
For the past 25 years of the non-proliferation treaty, the United Kingdom Government have not participated in any nuclear arms reductions whatever. In fact we are now one of the few countries that appear to be moving in the opposite direction.
Will the Minister explain how he sees the renewal of the agreement as consistent either with the existing NPT or with the extension negotiations that will take place in a few months' time? And how does he see it as consistent with the agreement, or accord, recently signed at the Budapest summit? The Budapest document contains a simple statement on the principles governing non-proliferation:
The participating states strongly believe that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles to deliver them poses a threat to international peace, security and stability, and hereby affirm their commitment to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons".
Yet the list of exchanges which have taken place under the agreement, and the intention to continue that agreement for a further 10 years, sets the United Kingdom off on a practical path that will render both of those agreements worthless. They will not even be worth the paper that they are written on because the practical consequences of our agreement is to disregard our wider international agreements. The Government attempt to do so in ways that systematically deceive the House, the country and the international community.
The agreement also has some phenomenally dangerous and destabilising implications for the prospects of the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Non-nuclear weapon states, which are being asked to subscribe to a treaty that will effectively exclude them from ever being nuclear weapons states, are already asking what the nuclear club will do in return. It is no longer acceptable for the nuclear powers to say, "We will act as a stabilising force and we will protect you," because the wars across the globe have made it clear that no such deterrent or stabilising force is particularly credible at the moment.
Many of the non-nuclear states, or the "maybe" nuclear states, are looking much more seriously at the argument that we have been using for a long time. They are saying, "If it's okay for you to have nuclear weapons, it should be okay for us. If you don't want us to go down that path, the quid pro quo must be that if we don't secure and obtain nuclear weapons, you have to stop testing."
One of the big issues in that dialogue is the extent to which the nuclear states have a technical capability now which no longer requires us to physically test nuclear weapons. That testing can be carried out by computer modelling in ways that allow for the refinements and upgrading of our weapons systems to improve—and I use


"improve" in parenthesis—and increase their effectiveness and the diversity of ways in which they can be used. That, in itself, is an act of proliferation. Seen through the eyes of the non-nuclear world, it is not a stand-still situation. However, this agreement is the bedrock on which we can continue acts of selective proliferation for ourselves while we seek to deny others access to the nuclear club.
It has been a serious error of judgment and a serious dereliction of duty for the Government to think that they could simply ratify an extension of such an agreement without giving the House an opportunity, in Government time, to raise fundamental questions about the ethics, advisability and acceptability—in global terms—of moving along that path. Given the opportunity, the House may have wanted to say that it is time to let the agreement lapse. If the world required a gesture from the United Kingdom, one of the most important suggestions that we could have made is that we would cease to be involved in this bilateral exchange of high-level nuclear information.
The agreement also raises questions, as a process, about ways in which the Government might use the Ponsonby rule, to ratify other treaties which would have equally profound effects on the governance of this country, and the place of this country internationally, and which would pass through the House without Parliament having the right to debate, disagree or even register an opinion on the implications of some of those proposals.
I end with several fairly simple questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Will he arrange an open debate, in Government time, on the set of implications contained in any proposal to renew and extend the agreement? Will he supply to Parliament and to the Select Committees on Defence and Foreign Affairs the information that has been supplied to similar committees in the United States Congress and Senate? Will he set out the detailed costs of all aspects of the 1958 agreement, including the administrative costs, and also the barter and loan arrangements that have been built into it?
Will the Minister set out the details of all the jowogs and eivrs that currently exist? The eivrs are the official visits and consequent reports. I should like him to do that so that Parliament is again treated to information in precisely the same terms available to the American Congress, and to the American people under their Freedom of Information Act.
Will the Minister explain how the signing of an extension to the agreement will contribute, first, to the Budapest summit commitments that the Government entered into—specifically in terms of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons; secondly, to the implementation of article 1 of the non-proliferation treaty; and, thirdly, to making progress and offering reassurances to other states in relation to the signing of a CTBT?
Will the Minister explain also whether the bottom line realities of the agreement that he proposes to have renewed are that, without the agreement, Britain does not have an independent nuclear deterrent but that, with the agreement, we have a policy that gives us no independence? What we have is an umbilical link between the United States and the United Kingdom, in which this country and the House have become the nuclear lackeys of the American nuclear arms programme.
The agreement is essential to the underpinning of the £30 billion costs of the nuclear arms programme with which this country is saddled. It is part of the process which underpins our nuclear servitude and the nuclear instability that threatens the planet. This is a dreadfully high price to pay for nuclear dependence and a dreadful price that the country and Parliament has had to pay for its systematic deception for almost 40 years.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on his perseverance in trying to obtain this debate and on what he has just said. I echo his requests for information from the Government.
Over the years that I have been a Member of the House, the Consolidated Fund debate has been a useful way for hon. Members who wish to uncover what the Government want to hide to pry a little into what is going on. If this is to be the last Consolidated Fund debate that keeps us up all night, I hope that, when we exchange it for time which might be much more convenient on a Wednesday morning, it will be just as easy for people such as my hon. Friend to prod and pry into matters that the Government want to keep secret.
Although I am pleased that my hon. Friend has obtained this debate, it is an absolute disgrace that we have to debate this matter in such a way. If the treaty is important, and if it is the key to the whole of the Government's strategy of nuclear deterrence, why is a Minister not prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box and set out why we should have the treaty and its benefits? Instead of trying to smuggle it through without debate, if it is so central to the Government's policy, they should have been prepared to say, "These are the benefits to the United Kingdom. As a result of the treaty, we really have an independent nuclear deterrent."
Although it is an abomination, at least the Government should be prepared to set out why they want such a position and what the benefits to the United Kingdom are. They should say how, as a result of the treaty, even if we have political disagreements with the United States, it will still be contractually bound to supply us the with things that we need to keep the nuclear deterrent independent. A Minister should tell us proudly what the benefits are, instead of having to be dragged to the House to answer questions.
I should have thought that the Minister would set out clearly what the cost to the United Kingdom will be. It is one of the fundamental principles of Parliament that we should be given information about costs, and that the Government should set out to justify them. Again, it is extremely difficult to find out what the costs are. The Leader of the House has suggested that the arrangement has no cost implications, but he does not put a very convincing case—obviously there are cost implications.
What are the safety implications of the arrangement? We know that materials are to be transferred. I think that the Minister owes the House an assurance that the transfer of fissile material between the two countries carries no safety implications at all.
The Minister must assure us that the arrangement contains nothing that has breached, or will breach, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in any way. We are extremely keen for other country's nuclear industries to


be inspected and regulated to ensure that they are not likely to breach the treaty or pose an international threat. It is fundamental that the British Government try to show—if they can—that we have not breached the treaty.
The Government should set out reasons why the agreement does not make it more difficult for us to renegotiate the non-proliferation treaty. It is in everyone's best interests to renew the treaty and get it to work effectively. While they are making other countries give cast-iron undertakings, the Government should be prepared to say that they have not breached the treaty and that the agreement will not weaken our negotiating position. The Government have not made such a statement and I hope that the Minister will at least attempt to produce that information in his reply to the debate.
It is sad that the Government treat the arrangements with so much secrecy. Much more information is available in the United States. I accept that the Government do not want to put details about the design of a nuclear triggerhead before the Parliament, but I do not understand why most of the information in the arrangement cannot be revealed to the House.
When we want to establish an effective deterrent, we tell people what we have and what we are capable of doing with it. If we do not inform people of our capabilities, the implication is that we probably do not have anything to act as a deterrent. That has been the case with most nuclear deterrents in recent years. It is quite clear that the Polaris submarines are not functioning effectively and that their whole deterrent effect has crumbled. That is why the Government want to pretend—it is the emperor's new clothes syndrome—that things are operating well when they are not. The Minister should tell the House whether the agreement is operational and whether all the details are in place, but I understand why he is not prepared to do that.
The Government must set out the answers to key questions. Are we still dependent on the United States for the design of the triggers for the nuclear weapons? Are they being designed at Sandina; if so, is it specified in the arrangements and how does that fit in with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Will we be able to say during the treaty negotiations that there has been no transfer of information and nuclear capabilities, which I understand is in breach of the non-proliferation treaty?
What will our officials say during treaty negotiations? Can they prove that we are not dependent on the transfer of the trigger design? Can they prove that there is no collaboration and no transfer of fissile material between the two countries? Unless we are prepared to be open and above board about our dealings with the United States in negotiations on the non-proliferation treaty, I do not see how we can expect other countries to assure us that they are not transferring information or trying to develop their own nuclear systems. It is fundamental that the Government can convince not only the House but the world that we have not been in breach of the non-proliferation treaty and that we will have no difficulty in signing up to future sections of it.
We must set out the details, for which my hon. Friend asked, of all the collaborations. What the British and United States Governments have been doing—and whether what they have been doing has been in any way a breach of the treaty—must be set out clearly in the record. I also suggest that the cost must also be set out clearly.
I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister to respond to the debate, because the main complaint from Opposition Members is about the Government's unwillingness to put forward their case. I make a final plea for openness about the negotiations. The Government ought to be proud to tell us what they are doing. The Opposition may be critical—I certainly am—of the Government's approach, but the Government ought not to be ashamed of what they are doing if they believe in the nuclear deterrent. If they believe in it, they should be prepared to put it forward as a positive policy. They should tell us the benefits and the costs, and they should certainly be able to guarantee to the House that the agreement will not make the non-proliferation treaty more difficult to negotiate and will not lead to the world becoming a less safe place.
I shall certainly listen with considerable interest to what the Minister says, although I do not accept that that will be an adequate response in one of the key areas of Government policy. We ought to have a proper debate in Government time in which a Minister sets out what he claims to be the benefits of the agreement.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on his ingenuity and persistence in obtaining this debate, which is important because it may be—I hope that it will not be—the only opportunity that the House has to discuss the agreement. I cannot identify myself with everything that my hon. Friend said, not least because of his criticism of poor old Ponsonby, whose rules we are the victims of tonight. In his day, Ponsonby was a man after my hon. Friend's heart—and my heart—and he introduced the rules precisely to extend openness. If we find the rules restrictive this morning, it is because the need for open government has moved on since 1924.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it is quite unacceptable that the agreement should be debated at such an hour and in such circumstances. If we believe in openness in government, it must be necessary to have a proper debate in Government time with the full text of the agreement in front of us. That, of course, is what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has requested from the Government. We do not regard this debate as a substitute for that, nor do we regard it as fulfilling the terms of my hon. Friend's request to the Foreign Secretary, expressed in his letter of 13 December.
The debate focuses on one article of the agreement, although I welcome the fact that it has strayed more widely. We shall continue to press for a real debate. In doing so, we are not expressing our determination to object to the agreement or to its ratification in an amended form. That is a reasonable inference, although we cannot be sure, because of the obscurity with which the agreement has so far been treated, that the agreement has played an essential part in maintaining Britain's nuclear weapons system. We are insisting that there is an opportunity for scrutiny, and not one that is focused on or confined to article III of the agreement.
Although I have no means of knowing whether the explanation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South is correct, it is worthy of note that there was a five-month delay between the agreement being reached and its being laid before Parliament. That


may mean that the Government find themselves in difficulty; if so, it is, sadly, a problem of their making. Our desire for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the agreement cannot be constrained by difficulties of the Government's own making.
My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South and for Denton and Reddish drew attention to the non-proliferation treaty; the conference on its extension will, I hope, take place next year. It is essential that we devise an extended non-proliferation regime that commands the means and the legitimacy for it to fulfil its objectives. Those objectives have been put on the record by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, who reminded us of the full text of article VI of the treaty, which expresses the objective of nuclear disarmament. The Government and Opposition support that objective, as we do the treaty.
The division of the world into nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states, under the terms of the existing non-proliferation treaty, was only possible as a temporary expediency. The business-as-usual-attitude towards its ratification is a slightly disturbing sign of what the Government's real attitude may be to that treaty. My hon. Friend for Nottingham, South is right that the agreement is open-ended, particularly its exchange of information clauses. It would be useful to be given a thorough explanation of why the treaty requires amendment and what circumstances led to the drafting of article II of the revised agreement. We have been told in a parliamentary answer that the terms of that article have been operating in practice for some time, but it is important to know the circumstances that led to that necessity.
My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South and for Denton and Reddish asked some perfectly proper questions. For example, has the agreement allowed for the exchange of information about warhead design or the exchange of advice or information relevant to that design? Has information on trigger systems—on fusing and firing systems for nuclear weapons—been passed to us as a result of the agreement? It would be perfectly proper if it had, because it is covered by the terms of the agreement. It seems right and sensible at this juncture, as we are considering more openness about and verification of nuclear proliferation, that the Government should at least be clear about that exchange of information.
Under the terms of the agreement, both parties to it may have passed information arising out of weapons tests to each other. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South asked the perfectly fair question whether that is reconcilable with the test ban treaty. If it is, how much stronger would the Government's position be if they made that clear? It is in our national strategic interest that that point is made plain. If there is no difficulty in reconciling that agreement and the obligations entered into under the test ban treaty—that may be the case—it is in our national interests that that is made clear. That would strengthen the hand of our negotiators at the treaty conferences next year, which will deal with the extension of the test ban treaty and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
My hon. Friends are right to draw attention to the terms of article I of the non-proliferation treaty, which used the word "indirectly". The agreement makes it clear that nuclear weapons "as such" and information about weapons "as such" cannot be exchanged under the terms

of the agreement. Is there any possibility of a breach of the non-proliferation treaty because of "indirect" exchanges of information about or relating to nuclear weapons systems? If, since 1970, when the NPT obligations were entered into along with the agreement that runs side by side with them, there has been no problem of reconciliation, how much stronger our position would be in convincing the non-nuclear weapons states of our good intentions and in creating additional legitimacy for our negotiating positions if that could be demonstrated. By not having a debate to clarify these matters, we have a missed opportunity from the Government's point of view. It would be helpful to have an assurance tonight that no action will be taken under the agreement in future that would contradict the terms of the test ban treaty.
Article III is the basis of the important point to which my hon. Friends have drawn attention: was weapons grade plutonium handed to the United States under the terms of the agreement? It would be proper, within the terms of the agreement, if that had taken place. If there were such an exchange, unless the material was subject to the special exemption clause for civil use—that is provided for in the agreement—it must be presumed that the exchange was for the purposes of defence planning and military uses. Under the terms of the agreement, unless there is a special exemption for civil use, all other uses of article 3 bis must be presumed to be for defence and military uses.
The original terms of article V are as follows:
Except … as may be agreed for civil uses, … the information communicated or exchanged, or the materials or equipment transferred, by either Party pursuant to this Agreement
shall be used by the recipient party exclusively for
the preparation or implementation of defense plans in the mutual interests of the two countries.
So the argument that exchanges may have been for civil uses is one of exception. The normal exchanges of information and material that are provided for under the agreement are and must be
for the preparation or implementation of defence plans in the mutual interests of the two countries.
That is extremely important, and it is only right that my hon. Friends wish the Minister to take up the matter.
Amendments are proposed under the terms of the revised agreement. There is a slight but significant change in the wording that is provided for in the third article of the revised agreement. What is the purpose of the amended wording? Does it carry any significance? What is the need to distinguish between "arranging" for something and "providing" for something? We have become used to the terminology of "provision" in other areas of the Government's activities. Is it implied that the terms of the agreement as proposed to be revised would allow other parties than the Government performing the functions or exchanging the materials that are provided for in this part of the agreement?
It causes us concern that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was a party named in the agreement, and the Government, in making the agreement, were making the agreement on behalf of what was in 1958 the Atomic Energy Authority, and which has now become two Government organisations—British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. It would be useful, if that curiously worded amendment is being tabled, to have some explanation of why that was necessary.
Are the terms of the agreement, as proposed to be amended, capable of allowing for direct bilateral exchange between those agencies of the Government and the United States of America? Are the provisions of the agreement exercisable by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority? What part might that play in any privatisation proposals for those agencies, and in the present format that those agencies now have? "Arrange for" rather than "provide" could imply a loosening of terms, precisely to allow companies and enterprises that are not part of the Government to exercise powers under the agreement. That is an important point, and the Government should clarify it.
We are moving, necessarily, to an era of greater openness in defence matters. Indeed, if we, the nuclear weapons states—Britain is one and, for some time, will remain one—do not exercise openness in our doings and dealings, we shall never convince the non-nuclear states to remain so. That is an argument that was made firmly by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, and in that regard I associate myself equally strongly with his remarks.
The control of proliferation is at the heart of our own security needs and the existence of scrutiny and verification is essential, now that the technologies of war and peace are so similar. To debate those issues openly—to have a frank exchange on what is implied by the obscure terms of those agreements—is not only right in terms of parliamentary accountability but a necessity for our future security, and it is in our national strategic interest.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on obtaining the debate, if not on the time at which he obtained it—we would all sometimes like to debate in the daytime.
It might be helpful to begin with several points of clarification for the benefit of the hon. Members for Nottingham, South, for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). I fear that they are labouring under several misapprehensions, with regard both to the nature of the 1958 Anglo-United States mutual defence agreement and to the procedures under which the 1994 amendment has been laid before the House, and under which it will, in due course, be ratified.
The hon. Gentlemen who raised the matter appear to allege that the Government have not followed the procedures by proceeding with ratification before the House has had a chance to debate the issues. I do not believe that that is so.
I begin by discussing the procedure by which the agreement has been laid before the House—the Ponsonby rule. I noted that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central spoke favourably about Mr. Ponsonby. Hon. Members will be aware that the Ponsonby rule, which dates back to 1924, is a convention of the House and does not impose any legal obligation on the Government. The rule states—I quote from page 215 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May":

when a Treaty requires ratification, the Government does not usually proceed until a period of 21 days has elapsed from the date on which the text of the Treaty was laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's Command. This practice is subject to modification, if necessary, when urgent or other important considerations arise.
There have certainly been occasions on which the Government have proceeded with ratification of an agreement before those 21 days have elapsed. For the agreement in question, the period of 21 days elapsed on 1 December, as I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central noted.
Under the Ponsonby rule, there is no obligation on the Government to wait those 21 days, but, as we have done in this case, we would always seek to do so unless there were pressing reasons to the contrary.
Nor does the Ponsonby rule oblige the Government to hold a debate before a treaty is ratified. The procedure is obviously different when ratification of a treaty entails new UK legislation or the amendment of existing legislation. That is, of course, a different matter, but it does not apply here.
There has also been a suggestion that the 1958 agreement entails a financial obligation on the part of the UK, and therefore that the House is entitled to a debate before ratification. That is a red herring.
The Ponsonby rule does not refer to financial commitments; nor, and in this case more importantly, does the 1958 agreement entail any explicit financial commitment by the UK. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed on both counts, and I shall elaborate. But to summarise this point, we could therefore have completed the ratification procedure already. As I have just said, we are not even obliged to wait for the 21 days.
Nevertheless, I can confirm that, out of respect for the House, we have deferred the exchange of notes which will constitute ratification until after the debate. I hope that the House will accept that the Government have behaved entirely properly in the matter.
I come now to the substance of the 1958 agreement.

Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way because I want to make an intricate argument. He made some complex points which I want to try to answer this evening.
I come now to the substance of the 1958 United Kingdom-United States mutual defence agreement and the objections that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has to it. He originally raised his objection to the ratification of the 1994 amendment during business questions on 1 December. He argued then that the House should have the opportunity to debate the amendment because, unless ratification were stopped, the Government would be committed to a bill of some £20 billion to the United States for the servicing, maintenance, operation and decommissioning costs of the Trident programme.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed on that point. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has since informed the hon. Gentleman, neither the 1958 mutual defence agreement nor the amendments now under consideration involved any financial commitment by the UK. Neither the agreement nor the amendments


commit the UK to purchase any goods or services from the United States. It certainly is not an agreement that commits the UK to pay the operating costs of Trident.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of costs. As far as I am aware, the sort of costs that he talked about are mostly covered under the defence estimates votes as a different issue altogether.
It might be of assistance to the House if I were to explain what the 1958 agreement is for and why we are renewing it. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for repeating in part what I am sure he will already know from reading the text of the amendments, Cm 2686, which was laid before the House on 21 October.
The background to the 1958 agreement is to be found in the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946, the so-called McMahon Act, which prevented the United States from sharing atomic energy information with other states. Although a new Atomic Energy Act was passed in 1954, which permitted full exchanges of information on civil aspects of atomic energy and even limited exchanges on military uses, in order to facilitate a full nuclear relationship with the UK, the United States Administration considered it necessary to enter into a formal agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes, the so-called mutual defence agreement.
In view of the United States Atomic Energy Act, which would otherwise limit severely the scope of our bilateral co-operation, the agreement has to have legal force in the United States. But the nature of the agreement is such that it does not require legislation for the UK; hence the procedure for ratification to which I already referred.
The amendments that have been laid before the House amend the one element of the agreement, article III bis, which requires regular renewal and adds a new paragraph to article VI.
If I may leave my text for a second, the hon. Gentleman referred to article II. Speaking from memory, that deals with the accounting arrangements that have been common practice in the past and are important in these days of nuclear smuggling. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong about that.
Article III bis concerns the two-way exchanges of special nuclear materials and other products. It requires periodic amendment to ensure its continuing relevance and validity.
The new paragraph F of article VI, which is set out in full in Cm 2686, includes strengthened obligations on both parties to follow adequate materials control and accountancy procedures in respect of nuclear materials transferred under the agreement. It also provides for consultation between the United Kingdom and the United States on these arrangements.
Both we and the United States already operate rigorous and effective materials control and accountancy arrangements, but we believe that it is correct that we should acknowledge explicitly the existence of those arrangements in the text of the agreement. Given the recent international concern about the need for rigorous materials control and accountancy procedures, I am sure that the House will welcome the explicit acknowledgement of our arrangements in the mutual defence agreement.
I think that it is clear why the hon. Gentleman sought a debate on the amendments to the mutual defence agreement. His intention became apparent towards the end of his speech. He challenged the very existence of our nuclear deterrent programme and the basis of our bilateral co-operation on nuclear matters with the United States of America. The House will not be surprised to learn that we are not prepared to accept those challenges. We intend that Trident will provide a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom. Our strategic deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security and contributes to NATO's strategy of war prevention.
The hon. Gentleman said something in his speech that was, in fact, wrong. I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the House, so I shall correct what he said. He implied that there had been no reduction—indeed, he implied that there had been an increase—in the UK's level of nuclear capability during the past few years. The fact is that we have eliminated our maritime tactical nuclear capability, we have reduced the number of nuclear bombs carried by aircraft and announced that they will not be replaced when they are withdrawn from service, and we have decided that Trident will carry fewer warheads than originally envisaged—thereby keeping the available explosive power to a level similar to that which existed previously. The overall effect is to reduce the total explosive power available by about 25 per cent., which is quite a significant change.
The other matter raised by the hon. Gentleman related to our attitude to the comprehensive test ban treaty. We are committed to negotiating an effective, verifiable and affordable CTBT. The agreement does not inhibit that commitment. We believe that there are good prospects for achieving an effective treaty. I am afraid that I missed a very small part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I understand that he referred to the alternative, so-called non-testing methods of ensuring the viability of nuclear weapons. For as long as the United States moratorium on testing continues, we are committed to not doing any further tests of our own. We are looking at the non-testing systems.

Mr. Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a point of clarification?

Mr. Davis: Yes, if it is a point of clarification.

Mr. Simpson: Is the Minister saying that the joint working group dealing with co-operation on computer modelling is no longer working? United States records list that group as being operative. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is now subject to the moratorium?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not be drawn into the detail of these matters. I shall consider his point after the debate and if I can give him an answer, I will. However, I cannot make an outright promise to do so.
It is now widely accepted—although perhaps not by the hon. Gentleman—that, during the cold war, NATO's nuclear forces were essential in ensuring that major conflict never occurred. They removed any rational basis for an adversary believing that a war could be fought in Europe and won. So we should not think lightly of dismantling a stable and secure framework for maintaining peace. Risks and uncertainties still exist. We are forging new relationships with Russia and the other countries of the old Warsaw pact. That process will be


helped by the stability provided by NATO's strategy for peace and security, including its minimum nuclear deterrent.
However, we cannot be sure that the positive trends that we have witnessed are irreversible. Other risks may develop. We cannot afford to wait for potential threats to become real before we respond, given the time lead and lag in such decisions. Our deterrent is, and will remain, operationally independent and under the absolute control of the British Government. We have undertaken that the system will be operated in defence of NATO, but have reserved the right to use it independently should supreme national interests so require.
Therefore, we believe that our independent nuclear deterrent remains our ultimate guarantee of national security as well as a fundamental element of the defence of the alliance of which we are proud to be part. We will not accept that that should be put into question by a procedural objection to the agreement that forms the basis of our nuclear defence co-operation with the United States of America. I should emphasise that we are not alone in that perception. Our allies continue to reaffirm that European security and stability are enhanced by the continued possession of nuclear forces by the United Kingdom and France. I am sure that the House will wish to reflect on those fundamentals, and not on the misinformed and misguided attacks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South on the mutual defence agreement.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems discourteous of the Minister, with 15 minutes of the debate left, not to allow interventions. It suggests that he is frightened to answer the questions. It is particularly discourteous that he has not answered all the questions that we raised about the non-proliferation treaty. I simply think that you ought to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister.

Internet

Mr. David Shaw: I begin by thanking my colleague and friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, whom I have known for many years. I feel that I should apologise for requiring him to be up at this late hour. I believe that this is one of the last debates that is likely to be heard in the House of Commons on the present basis.
The history of this august building in which we have the great privilege to work goes back some 900 years. It is interesting that we are about to debate what may take us forward to the next 100 years in a way that may transform lives in a way that probably no one in the past 900 years except those who have been alive in the past couple of decades might have fully comprehended.
The development of the Internet and the information super-highway is certainly an exciting development. On a scale of one to 10, many would certainly rate it a 10. It is probably a little short of that in terms of human development, but certainly an enormous change in our lives will result from the Internet and the information super-highway. Subject to any copyright restrictions of Hansard, I hope to be able to place a copy of this debate on the Internet in the next fortnight. I hope that will be seen and read by as many as 30 million people, instead of the small number of hon. Members in the Chamber now, at 3.15 am.
People who get carried away with Internet and become over-endowed with excitement are known as techies or techno nerds. They say Internet will make politicians obsolete. I hope that that will not happen. I do not subscribe to their vision of the future, which is that 40 million people or more will vote by electronic means, on television. We are a long way from that.
However, there will be enormous changes, and opportunities for people to express opinions and views. The Government's world wide web server on Internet allows the public to convey views and comments to the Government and Ministers.
I believe that I was the first Member of Parliament to subscribe to Internet, in April this year. I have found it an interesting experience, and I hope that those subscribers with whom I have corresponded have done so. I hope that those of my constituents who are also subscribers, particularly schoolchildren, will find the project of benefit and use.
It is incumbent on me to present a mini glossary of information super-highway terms. The language may be obscure now, but it will become common parlance in future—words and abbreviations such as bandwidth, megabytes, WWW, or world wide web, WAIS, or wide area internet search information service, ARCHIE, GOPHER, TCP/IP, FTP or file transfer protocol, e-mail—electronic mail—and hypertext. The latter will become common terms when establishing a world wide web page.
The information super-highway offers enormous employment and business opportunities, and this country must take a lead even if Internet did not start and develop here. Internet is also an attractive means for pupils and students to learn, obtain information and exchange ideas. My four-year-old son spent part of the summer communicating with four-year-olds and older children in Colorado, Nebraska and California.
Internet and the super-highway also offer a wider range of home-based entertainment. They offer an enormously powerful source of information. For the price of a local telephone call, one can connect to a global network that allows information to be extracted from computers in Honolulu, Australia and many other parts of the world.
Although Internet was originally established for information and research, now businesses are using it to communicate with each other and with consumers. The information super-highway is much more than Internet. For some time, the United States has led in cable television, which is one of the major ways in which the information super-highway will be developed and brought to people's homes in the United Kingdom.
It is interesting that the United Kingdom has a broad-band communications network based on optical glass fibre cables which will be able to carry much more information than traditional cables, whereas the United States is primarily cabled with the old copper-based twisted pair cables. I am fairly confident that we shall have—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): indicated assent.

Mr. Shaw: I see my hon. Friend the Minister nod. I am fairly confident that we shall have the most advanced optical fibre information technology network in the world when it is completed. The network will be achieved by low regulation, in which the Government believe strongly. That low regulation encourages the development of the information super-highway and the United Kingdom's connection to the worldwide network.
There is some irony in that because we have been helped in this development by a number of companies from the United States and Canada. We must be grateful to those companies, which have been very supportive, ambitious and competitive, for the way in which they are helping to develop high-capacity, broad-band cabling which is bringing us voice, data and video capacity. It will enable telephone shopping, home banking, remote security and energy management to become normal services for many people who do not have them readily available at the moment.
The United Kingdom's lead will, when it is fully under way, probably result in the employment of 25,000 people in jobs that did not exist a few years ago. It will result in 60,000 miles of glass fibre cable being installed in the United Kingdom. For the majority of homes, the cabling should be complete by the end of the decade. I talked to some American congressmen recently at a Bow group event about which my hon. Friend the Minister knows; he, like me, was privileged to be asked to speak at it. The congressmen raised with me one issue that is relevant in parts of the United Kingdom—how we shall bring the information super-highway to the more remote parts of the country. There is a problem in the United States in working out how that will be achieved. There is a rush to cable cities, while many remote communities are concerned about whether they will be able to get on to and benefit from the information super-highway.
The United Kingdom is also the only major country to allow cable operators to provide cable television and a full, competitive telephone and data service. In that regard, I am delighted that so far, the Government have franchised areas that cover 14.5 million of the 20 million households. Some 4.3 million homes have already had cable constructed which enables or will enable them to get the services that are available. Some 630,000 homes have telephony services installed and are using telephone services already.
The investment to date is approaching £3 billion. The only significant question I have for the Minister is, when will Dover and Deal get that cabling? The constituency would like to gain the advantages as soon as possible. This is an exciting development which will join three major industrial areas that were hitherto thought to be totally distinct. Telecommunications will join television, and that combination will join computing. Computing will provide the power to give telecommunications and television a much wider range of services and the ability to call up those services interactively and actively in a way that has never existed before.
It will probably be a little while before many people use the system, one of the main reasons being that the industry is still working out exactly how to motivate people to use it and working out the criteria that will help the system to develop to the extent that many expect. The price is currently considered a little high for some people—although, given the number of people who have already subscribed to satellite television, the costs will not necessarily be enormous. One way to reduce them would be through competition in the provision of telephone services.
It has been forecast that between 19 million and 20 million households in the United Kingdom may have access to the service in the long term. That would require investment of some £11 billion or £12 billion. Many people who are not accountants will nevertheless realise that, with a 10-year depreciation rate, that means a cost of about £1 billion a year in depreciation alone. The industry's staff and running costs amount to some £2 billion a year, and if we assume a 50 per cent. penetration rate we can roughly compute that it will cost most subscribers between £200 and £300 a year to get on to the information super-highway and take advantage of all the available services.
The current television licence is about £84, but, as I have said, the potential telephone cost savings will largely compensate for the difference in cost. No doubt many people will want to take advantage of that opportunity. Some may not find the service user-friendly to start with, especially as a wide range of services is not yet developed; at present, such services require access to computer systems which may be rather technical in terms of people's ability to interrogate. But the industry is increasingly moving away from hardware and towards software development, and I hope that we in the United Kingdom will encourage a number of our companies to develop software products.
Much of the software development results from the fact that the United States started Internet some years ago, but I hope that many of our universities will develop sophisticated software handling of the information super-highway in the near future. Certainly there has been considerable investment in the United Kingdom, and I trust that that investment will result in consumer products in the not-too-distant future.
We may ask why people should use the system. Sometimes it presents a challenge: at the conference that my hon. Friend the Minister and I attended recently, I found it quite enjoyable to challenge some of the industry's specialists by asking them why people should want to communicate through the information super-highway rather than—like most people—having a good night out in a pub, restaurant or cinema. Why indeed? The traditional British methods of entertainment and communication have been established over many hundreds of years and are very successful; certainly I do not want the leisure industries in my constituency, such as pubs and restaurants, to be done out of their trade.
Most people realise, however, that the new service presents a tremendous opportunity—not just for communications within the local town or county but for worldwide communications, entertainment and sources of information. The only question is whether the information super-highway can be made as friendly as a visit to the local pub or restaurant in good company.
The futurologists and the cable industry employees have not yet convinced the masses, and it will be some time before we see enormously wide use of the system. Indeed, it could be said that wide use is necessary to encourage wide use. If we really believe that there are business opportunities for the United Kingdom, we have to get out there and explain the Internet to people. I hope that this debate will, in a modest way, encourage wider use among businesses, children and many people of more than school age.
The many uses that have been identified to date for the Internet include entertainment and home video on demand. The Internet also has enormous potential for home shopping and considerable potential for home banking. There are also prospects for many Government services to be privatised using the information super-highway. There are opportunities for private individuals and companies to take on Government services and offer new ways to deliver them. One thinks immediately about the prospect of better services for the elderly and other home-based people. Care managers could be kept in contact through the Internet with those about whom they are concerned and for whom they are responsible. All that is required is a more user-friendly interface between the elderly person and the care manager.
We should not assume that elderly people are computer illiterate. Indeed, that would be doing them a great injustice. It is surprising how many pensioners are purchasers of home computers. Perhaps as many as 20 per cent. of pensioners have at one time bought a home computer, although the statistics are probably slightly distorted by the fact that many buy small home computers for grandchildren. Nevertheless, all Members of Parliament will know that an increasing number of pensioners use home computers to write to us. The letters are slightly longer than they used to be and perhaps slightly more well informed and well argued, too. They are also, thank goodness, sometimes much easier to read than when they were written in the traditional way.
Other Government services that might be better delivered by the Internet include medical services. Only the other day I saw that the information super-highway is being used in Oxfordshire by doctors who want to communicate directly and as soon as possible with

hospitals about samples taken from patients and the results of tests. Information can be relayed speedily and efficiently to the doctors.
The Internet could also be used for education and training. It would mean that people who thought that they could not easily take a degree or who currently use the Open university but are restricted because of the reliance on standard broadcasts that have to be available everywhere in the country will be able to pick the university of their choice and communicate with it directly from their home. A university in Scotland, for example, will be able to take on home-based students from the south of England and students from Scotland can take courses at universities in the south of England. Such flexibility will mean that many more people will have the opportunity to study in ways not previously thought possible.
The delivery of some of the Department of Employment's training and reskilling programmes is sometimes criticised for being expensive and inefficient. The programmes are delivered with the best of intentions, but in a standard package and that cannot be as varied as delivery by the Internet. I look forward to the day when the Internet is used in that respect. It is an exciting prospect.
When the Select Committee on Social Security recently discussed pensions, we were told that people will in future be expected to have at least four if not more employers in a 40-year working life. Therefore, constant retraining and learning is likely to be a feature and the information super-highway offers a tremendous opportunity to develop new methods to help people go through that process.
So people should want to use the information super-highway. There is an enormous challenge in developing the services, and there are many aspects to that. One that people sometimes worry about is whether there will be information overload—and there have been problems in the past with the older technology. That is an especially good reason why the United Kingdom should be better placed than most, because by having an optical fibre network we can make information overload less likely to happen. Much more information can be carried in that way than by other methods that use older technology.
On the information super-highway, and especially on the Internet, about 300 people may now post to what is commonly called a news group. There are often thoughts about what would happen if 100,000 or 1 million people wished to express their views to a particular news group. Of course, there is a risk that if the system failed it could result in alienation and disenchantment, which could lead to individuals withdrawing. So it will be important for the system to be flexible and capable of development—and those are among the features of the Internet.
The Internet started in 1969 and was originally called the DARPANET. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the United States was responsible for it as a military research project, the object of which was to enable a number of establishments involved in military research to exchange information by computer in a way that, if any one of the computers was lost from service—whether by accident or in war—all the other computers would still be able to carry on communications.
By 1972 about 37 computers were involved in the DARPANET, and it grew and grew, and became known as the ARPANET. By 1983 the military had found that they wanted to get off the civilian system, as it was rapidly becoming, and develop their own system. In the Internet's short history the other major feature was that in 1987 the system suffered a severe overload when, because of the state of the technology at that time, it was unable to cope with the growth in the numbers of computers and users.
As I have already said, it is most unlikely that exactly that sort of system overload would be experienced again, because we are now operating such an advanced system. The United Kingdom has an especially advanced system, into which the Government have put a considerable amount of money. That is called JANET—the joint academic network—and it is now being developed as SuperJANET. I have had the privilege of discussing the system, which works well, with some of the professors who have been involved in its development, and this country can be proud of the fact that our system is probably technically superior to the system in America, and many people regard it as such.
The Internet now involves 30 million to 40 million people. Although in 1972 it had only 37 computers, there are now estimated to be more than 1.8 million computers connected to it. The Financial Times published a good table this summer showing the enormous growth that has taken place. The system is not only for academics and universities, and not only for ordinary people using it from their homes. It extends to businesses and many other users, including four coffee houses in San Francisco. I should add that the first Internet coffee house in London opened recently, and I believe that others are planned.
Every day thousands of people join the Internet—from Russia to Australia to Japan. Growth in the United Kingdom has been enormous, and my service provider, having given a pretty good service, nevertheless now responds with the engaged tone for several hours a day. I believe that the system is doubling its capacity every three months.
What do people do on the Internet? I described some of the services earlier. Primarily, the services on the Internet can be identified as electronic mail, information browsing using the world wide web servers, the ARCHIE servers or the data base searching techniques that are available.
File transfer is also available as a service on the Internet. One can download photographs from great distances. That gives rise to some concern because of the risk of pornography, but most people on the Internet do not have access to pornographic photographs which, so far, have been a minority oriented problem. The greatest use of downloading photographs has been for educational benefit.
During the summer, I was able to download a photograph of Saturn from the NASA computers in Pasadena in California for the price of a local telephone call. The photograph was of great interest to me and, I am pleased to say, to my four-year-old son. It was accompanied by a short narrative, so I did not have to do

too much explaining about the moons of Saturn, the details of which I had probably learned at school, but which I have managed to forget over the years.
It was a great experience to show one's son that level of information. He found it quite valuable because his school has carried out a short project this autumn on flight and space travel. Clearly, the ability to download a photograph of a planet, which had been taken by the Voyager satellite in the past 20 years, was quite useful in that process. That is one of the uses that schoolchildren in my constituency are now making of the Internet.
The Internet also has an amazing socialising aspect. I believe that at least one marriage has taken place between someone in the United Kingdom and someone in the United States as a result of meeting on the Internet. I do not think that that is the sole reason why many people join the Internet, but it is an interesting area where people exchange news and information. It is an area where chat and discussions take place.
When I tested how the Internet chat system operated the other week, I had the interesting experience of joining a chat group in the United States. I had a great problem because the chat takes place in a language that is sometimes rather difficult to understand. One has to learn about "smilies" if one wants to take a serious part in such conversations. Smilies are typewritten items that appear on screen comprising colons and semi-colons with little brackets that are used to make smiling faces so one can show whether one is happy with a comment made on the Internet or slightly unhappy, as happens from time to time. I believe that there are "saddies" if one requires them. The Internet is largely a happy place and most people on it have generally enjoyed its benefits and using it.
The key point about the Internet is that, while such communication has taken place between human beings before, it is now taking place on a world scale. One can talk very easily to people in Australia and America. When, as a member of the Social Security Select Committee, I had to draw up a report on the Child Support Agency earlier this year, I posted to the American Internet news group on child support and I asked for information.
I received information about the American child support system from all over America. In particular, I would like to thank the engineer with the PhD in California who provided me with some very interesting information about the Californian child support system, and the lady lawyer in New York state who gave me a good analysis of the New York state version of the American child support system.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The hon. Gentleman is interested in the Internet and he is also a member of the Social Security Select Committee. He has been able to talk to America about the Child Support Agency. Can he communicate with the CSA itself through the Internet? That indeed would be progress.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In the next few minutes, I shall comment on the way in which the Government have gone on the Internet. I am sure that hon. Members would like to have the facility that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Many of my constituents who come to me with Child Support Agency problems have not yet bought the modem, although many of them have home computers. It would have helped if


the Child Support Agency had been able to take e-mail down the Internet. It would have been able to process many queries much more quickly and efficiently.
I congratulate the Government on going on the Internet with a world wide web server called "open.gov.uk" a couple of months ago. It has been enormously successful. About 100,000 people used it in the first couple of months. That compares favourably with the White House system. I understand that 45,000 people sent President Clinton e-mail in the first three months of the White House server being set up. That is a sign that people want to use that means of communication as a way of finding out what their Governments are doing on their behalf.
On the way in which we spend research moneys in this country�žI know that my hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible for all research moneys; perhaps he will have a word with the other Ministers responsible—there is a strong argument that we should not spend so much on pure electronic and information technology research and that we should spend some money on setting up databases of Government information and other information that people might want on the Internet.
By facilitating the setting up of databases, we will encourage more people to use the Internet and obtain more value out of it. It is not that I am against pure research, but we need to consider ways in which the consumer orientation of the Internet can be developed for the benefit of the United Kingdom and encourage the development of a software industry that will search data-bases and use them better than has happened in the past, as the Internet has developed.
I also pay tribute to the CCTA, the Government centre for information systems and the Cabinet Office for their development of the Internet and the world wide web server. It should be congratulated on developing a modern and well-structured series of world wide web pages of information. They compare very favourably with the other world wide web servers to which I connect myself. I am impressed that the information is well laid out and of such good quality.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who recently answered my parliamentary question on what his Department is doing about the Internet, by posting the Command Paper entitled "Creating the Superhighways of the Future—Developing Broadband Communications in the United Kingdom" to the Internet on 24 November Many people have found that to be an interesting document to search. I am pleased that the Department Trade and Industry is taking such an active role.
We should be delighted that, within the past 24 hours—before I came to the debate, I checked the Government's world wide web server—the Office of Science and Technology has gone on the Government Internet. Within the past week, the Defence Research Agency has gone on the Internet. Usage statistics for the Defence Research Agency on the Internet show that people from Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia have been looking at the world wide web pages that the Government's Defence Research Agency has posted.
If there is a successor to the KGB or the security services in those countries, it is interesting that they no longer have to employ members of the staff of The Guardian to obtain information about this country. They.can now dial through the Internet and obtain the information direct.
The natural history museum is on the Internet. That is an extremely interesting page to which I hope to introduce my son in due course.
Those of us with a European bent—of whom I know that there are many in the House—can retrieve a full history of Europe, languages in Europe and other detailed information on the Government's world wide web server. By pressing the relevant word on the relevant page using a mouse, one is transferred directly from the Government's world wide web server to the European union world wade web page.
I am pleased that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is on the Internet. However, I am slightly disappointed to learn from answers to my recent Parliamentary Questions that some Government Departments are a little slow in realising the benefits of going on the Internet.
The Department of Transport should examine the benefits of going on the Internet. A UK transport news group and a UK environment news group have been on Internet for many months, and I think that the two Departments could post a lot of useful information. Many people are interested in environmental developments, and the Department of Transport could post many of its cone warnings and motorway works messages on Internet. People could search for that information on Internet very easily.
In closing, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the wonderful project that is being conducted by local schools in Dover and Deal. I pay tribute to the schools which have come on line. I initiated the project during the summer, and Walmer school has taken a leading role.
A Congressman friend in the House of Representatives, Tom Petri, and his staff member, Kim Forsberg, who has assisted in setting up the project, have helped the local schools to connect with schools in the Wisconsin No. 6 district. Now 13-year-olds in my constituency are exchanging life style information with schools in Wisconsin and making lifestyle comparisons. I hope that the project will develop further and will prove to be of immense educational benefit. We intend that the project should work with the national curriculum to provide an interesting source of information.
On a recent visit to the school, I was shown the results of the children's latest project. They had searched the information super-highway using the word "Turner", with a view to discovering all the art work by Turner which is available on the Internet. They showed me a number of paintings. A feature of Internet and the information super-highway is that the computer delivered everything it had under the name "Turner". Therefore, as well as wonderful old English paintings, the computer retrieved a modern picture of Tina Turner. The male members of staff found that most acceptable, and it was a source of amusement to female staff.
The project has demonstrated that Internet and the information super-highway present many interesting opportunities which will add an extra dimension to education in this country. Children are no longer limited by books; schools in my area have an installed base of about 70 or 100 computers. The argument about whether schools have enough books has long since dropped from public debate in this country. Government resources for information technology are many times more than those spent on school books as a source of learning.
I believe that Internet and the information super-highway are important because the systems will create jobs and assist in education and skills training. The Government have much information which people wish to access and I hope that they will be given that access in the future. The political debate will certainly be enlivened as more people have access to more information about the issues of the day. A very lively debate on political issues takes place already in the news group "UK politics".
Substantial further development will be required before the system is truly user-friendly. In the last few years, enormously rapid technological change has helped to make the system more user-friendly than ever before. We can envisage in the next 10 years a wide range of people in this country taking advantage of the information super-highway, and that will certainly lead to a considerable transformation of people's lives.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his extremely well-researched speech, and on taking the opportunity to bring us here at this hour to discuss it.
My worry at standing to speak just before 4 am is lessened because—probably uniquely—I am inspired by the fact that, rather than addressing a thinly attended House, I am probably addressing 30 million people through the Internet system. My hon. Friend undertook to make sure that his speech and mine were downloaded on to Internet. I feel that all of our words of wisdom this morning will get their just size of audience. The figure of 40 million Internet addicts around the world has been given, but I like to be conservative in these matters.
There are 50,000 known subscribers in the United Kingdom and, interestingly, 30 per cent. of businesses in the United Kingdom are already connected to Internet. I believe that the impact is fast and growing, as my hon. Friend said. It is estimated that, by the year 2000, Internet will be the largest single community of contacts in the world—larger than any European Union state. The dramatic impact and the potential of Internet are difficult to understand, but it is important that we access and take full advantage of it.
I welcome the initiatives which my hon. Friend has taken in his constituency. I shall look into the issue of when Dover and Deal will receive cable, but I hope he will follow my maxim about cable communications: that is, "Do not complain if the cable industry is digging up your street—complain if it is not." The technology which the cable industry can bring is dramatic, and it will transform the way in which many of us live or lives.
Super-highways—the other part of the debate which my hon. Friend initiated—have come about as a convergence in the area of multi-media, involving television and publishing together with data. That fusion is taking advantage of the cheaper telephone costs which are now available, the exponential growth in computing power and the dramatic fall in the cost of computing. It is an exciting revolution.
My hon. Friend issued a few little challenges to me to make sure that I was up to date. I do not think that he quite called me an Internet nerd, but I shall have a word

with him after about that. I can exclusively inform him that I have downloaded the Government's Command Paper on the information super-highways, which I issued on 22 November, directly to the mailing address of Vice-President Al Gore at the White house. What Vice-President Gore does with it is another matter.
I am also able to tell the House that I have my own e-mail and Internet address. This is, I believe, a first in Government. I am the first Minister to be on Internet, and my address is "taylor@mintech.demon.co.uk". I shall be happy to receive messages—one hopes positive ones—at that address.

Mr. Cousins: Can the Minister assure us that the system has been tested, so that people attempting to pick up his words do not, unfortunately, get pictures of Elizabeth Taylor instead?

Mr. Taylor: Internet freaks may well prefer Elizabeth Taylor, but I shall do my best to smile. If the hon. Gentleman cares to access the Command Paper, he will see that my photograph appears alongside the opening caption. There is no doubt that Internet is also exciting to access when photographs of Ministers appear on it.
I take the issue of being on Internet seriously. As Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, I am delighted to say that that address should work. If it does not, one can put a note on the internal message board, and I shall get the experts to look at it.
Internet is an exciting development in communications and the telephone system, which is the main carrier, has now been adapted to take digital information from one place to another. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to talk about international communications being so useful, but it also worth stressing that when one accesses Internet, wherever one goes around the world, one can do it for the cost of a local telephone call. The cost of using Internet is therefore dramatically lower than it would be were other routes used.
One small point of interest is that the world wide web, to which my hon. Friend referred, was developed at CERN in Geneva, which took on the American technology and enabled the network to interconnect and to deliver exciting new multi-media applications. Those of us in the United Kingdom can access Internet via public service providers, BT and CompuServe. Internet is used not simply for data transmission—texts or photographs—but for videos. One can pull down CD-ROMs through the Internet and digitally reschedule sound recordings: for example, songs. Yesterday, the "Today" programme broadcast how that can be done from CD-ROMs for the music industry. There are many other ways in which visual images, as well as a mixture of sounds, are now available on Internet and effectively free.
Internet is becoming the backbone of the information super-highways, and, although it will not be the only one, it is critical. I am pleased to be the closest thing in the British Government to Vice-President Al Gore or, in the European context, to Martin Bangemann, because I am responsible for co-ordinating questions on the information super-highway for the Government. I have gained an extremely exciting job, which has brought with it a steep technological learning curve.
The United Kingdom is in a strong position to exploit and use networking capacities. That derives from a strong user interest and from a strong supplier capability. As I


have said, we are already quite extensive users of Internet, both as private individuals and as businesses. United Kingdom subscriptions are estimated to be growing at the rate of 20 per cent. each month. As there is no payment to be made and no register, it is difficult to make an estimate, but the estimates we receive are provided to us independently.
We have a long user history of network services—for example, the use of videotext and the on-line systems used by travel agents to book our holidays. The access to networks is normally via personal computers and the United Kingdom uses more PCs per head of the population than most European countries. We have 22 PCs per 1,000 citizens against a European average of 10 PCs per 1,000 citizens. Our usage is, of course, behind American usage. User numbers are increasing fast and people are looking for new applications.
The supplier strengths are also important. One of the main drivers in that fast developing market is the PC and more than 40 per cent. of those sold in Europe are made in the United Kingdom. Our producers need fast developing markets and Internet provides one of them. Together with our competitive and liberalised telecommunications framework, that puts us in a strong position to develop the European market and win our fair share of business. I am delighted that at the November Telecoms Council the other members of the European Union agreed to liberalise both services and infrastructures by 1 January 1998. As we began our own liberalisation in 1984, we are, therefore, some way ahead. We wish to retain the advantages that we have derived from that.
We have been a favoured target for inward investment, especially in information technology and the electronics industries. That builds on our indigenously based suppliers such as ICL, Viglen and Acorn. We have major investments in personal computer production by IBM and Compaq. In total, in the 20 years to 1991, the United Kingdom has attracted 36 per cent. of all the United States direct investment coming into the European Community and over 40 per cent. of investment coming from Japan. That is critical. The UK is proving to be a healthy place for investing and producing within the information technology business.
The liberalisation of telecommunications has provided the right framework. It is essential that anyone who believes in the unrolling of the super-highways, which are difficult to predict and not a single mechanistic structure but an interconnecting and interlacing of networks, must at the same time believe in liberalisation. Liberalisation cannot take place against any other background. The Labour party needs to take that into account, as many of the other member countries of the European Union are beginning to do.

Mr. Cousins: That is a most interesting argument. Will the Minister assure that outside the areas covered by the cable franchises BT will be free to put broadcast entertainment down its lines? That would greatly promote the extension of the information super-highway and the fibre optics system to those parts of the country.

Mr. Taylor: I can give the undertaking that is to be found in the Command Paper that BT will be encouraged to bid for the future franchises for those parts of the country that are not currently franchised, using, where appropriate, its own infrastructure within the franchised area. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether BT will be

free to broadcast simultaneous entertainment on its national network, the answer is no, as he will recall from the Command Paper and the 1991 White Paper. The reason for that is that we have encouraged the cable industry and other services, including radio spectrum, to come in. The commitments that have been made to those industries are being returned in massive investment—£10 billion in this decade—to provide alternative infrastructures in the areas that are already franchised.
I shall return to the BT point later because the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. There is a misconception about what BT is and is not entitled to do. BT is entitled to do everything, including carrying all the interactive services nationally, with the exception of simultaneous broadcast services, such as carrying BBC or Sky on its existing network.
Since the privatisation of BT and the liberalisation of the market, the price of telecommunications has fallen by over 35 per cent. in real terms. The take-up of basic telephone services has moved from an already high percentage to an even higher one. In other words, the universal service provision has increased since liberalisation rather than decreased. The figures have risen from 79 per cent. of households in 1984, when BT was privatised, to more than 90 per cent. now. The cable companies are contributing to this usage by linking customers who have not previously had a telephone. It is often forgotten that many people who do not have a telephone live in urban areas. As a result of the falling costs that are provided by competition, cable companies are finding that people are prepared to take a telephone for the first time.
BT is contributing to that. It has had a magnificent record since it woke up to the stimulating impact of competition; it has spent more than £22 billion since 1984 in modernising its network and continues to invest heavily. The cable companies, as I said, are investing £10 billion in this decade. The cable companies alone are undertaking 50 km of cable ducting per day—a remarkable figure. The United Kingdom is making substantial progress, therefore, in building out the super-highways.
The question is how we are using the networks that are being developed. E-mail is the strongest driving force—the ability to send quick messages and packets of information directly to someone outside one's organisation or home. E-mail is cheaper than other methods, for example the fax, which itself is usually cheaper than ordinary postage stamps.
Other people want to transfer whole files of information down the line, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned that, especially in reference to the JANET and SuperJANET systems. The SuperJANET is fully broadband. Both systems enable academics and researchers to send huge amounts of data, including visual data, down the network.
Education is crucial. I am delighted to hear about the arrangements in schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dover. The cable networks and BT are also rapidly linking up schools so that they have access to the local loop and, through the local loop, can network around the United Kingdom. That will make possible new ways for children to do homework, and also distance learning, which is increasingly important.
The university of Southampton recently launched a Master's degree course in information engineering. It is transmitted by e-mail and accessed wherever IBM employees can make best use of it.
Doctors are already using their network systems for prompt delivery of test results. Speed is often critical to a patient's health. The Department of Health is extending its own network links and a good number of UK organisations are in the European advanced informatics in medicine programme. An interesting trial of remote medical diagnosis is also currently under way in Powys in Wales.
Updates of computer software packages are being sent over the wire, which is easier than posting. In other words, if one is connected, one can now increasingly even update one's CD-ROM in realtime. In America, for example, a CD-ROM for American football is automatically updated through the telephone system, so that results of games currently being played are fed into the system. If we develop that in this country, it will be an incentive for someone who has bought a personal computer with a CD-ROM capacity to add a modem and connect into the network, so that, instead of being self-contained, that person becomes geared up to the network.
Only two days ago, Phone-Link, a Birkenhead-based information services company, announced with W.H. Smith and Son that it would develop an on-line office supplies catalogue. Office supplies could be ordered via the network, saving time and improving accuracy. I give those examples simply to show how the network is being rapidly built out and interesting ideas applied.
What the Government are already doing to encourage awareness among potential users was described in the "Creating the Superhighways of the Future" Command Paper, which was issued on 22 November 1994 and which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, I arranged to be downloaded on to the Internet. We shall consider other ways of disseminating Government information and I know that new ideas are being put into practice constantly.
The Treasury is also now connected to the Internet and is attempting to provide information. The Budget was made available on the Internet system immediately my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor had sat down.
The CCTA, for which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Office of Public Service and Science is responsible, recently launched a server to put Government information from a range of Departments on line, and make it accessible through the world wide web. He was right to pay tribute to the work that the CCTA is doing.
The Department of Trade and Industry has supported development programmes, which are using Internet to disseminate information and encourage wide participation by companies. One is "Computer Supported Co-operative Work", which is developing teleworking technologies and related standards.
We are also talking to industry about a further initiative in e-mail preferred, by which large organisations, including the Government, would opt for e-mail communications wherever feasible. The backbone of the DTI's own communications system is the Osprey system

and I am looking closely to see how that can best be developed in order to go into the DTI's old building, which has been renovated, when the move takes place next year.
I am also participating in the follow-up to the Bangemann report in the European context, and the G7 Ministers' conference in February on the information super-highways which I expect to attend. In those forums we will study specific applications on which more emphasis should be placed. For the UK, reaching the small and medium-sized companies with competitiveness messages and building on our strengths in large and critical software applications will be among our priorities. I agree with my hon. Friend that greater access to databases should be a priority. There is an enormous amount of data in government that could be made more widely available.
The Command Paper highlighted the areas of multi-media services and applications that will play an important part in the development of the super-highways. Multi-media services combine still pictures and moving images as well as audio and textual information in a single digital bit stream. Substantial bandwidth is needed to carry all these bits, and that is one of the reasons why operators are developing broadband networks.
Many of the networks in the UK, the United States and continental Europe are being used to trial a range of innovative services, including home shopping and home banking, which my hon. Friend mentioned. An incredible number of American citizens regularly make financial and stock exchange transactions through the super-highways, something that simply does not happen in the UK. It has been one of the driving forces in the United States and the lack of the habit here has held back wider public use of the Internet.
We are on the verge of a great new leap forward in the use of the Internet through the various ways in which multi-media is now becoming available. The largest single publisher of encyclopedia is now a software house, Microsoft—an incredible development in a short period.
Together, multi-media and the use of networks are tending to blur the boundaries that mark one industry from another. It is affecting the competitiveness of firms in those industries. Opportunities are emerging in the form of new ways to reach consumers with alternative products. The key asset of modern business is accessing information, analysing it and making good distributive use of it faster than any other company in the same sector.
The DTI is taking a clear stance on multi-media. We have taken some other initiatives which I shall mention briefly. We have reorganised the Department itself to have a multi-media steering group and unit within the DTI to co-ordinate the Department's policies in relation to the sector.
I have established a multi-media industry advisory group to help me in my new task of co-ordinating all information. That group is made up of senior industrialists from the main sectors affected by multi-media—information technology, telecommunications, media, publishing, television, and so on—and of individuals whose expertise in health and education will be a great benefit to the group. The group had its first meeting yesterday evening and we had a lively and constructive session covering an incredible range of matters. I look forward to subsequent meetings.
The DTI is doing its best to ensure that we are looking ahead to see how multi-media can best benefit British people and businesses. We also have closely in mind the other matters which need to be looked at—regulation, standards and policy making on intellectual property. We also have a number of research and development and technology transfer financial programmes which can help to offset the costs associated with getting to grips with multi-media questions.
The key point that we should bear in mind in this debate is that to meet the challenges that the United Kingdom will face in global markets, we must be much more aware of what technology can provide and then apply it through the super-highways in everyday life and work. There must be a greater awareness of these matters and a greater clarity about the business benefits so that we can fully understand how companies can gain competitive advantages.
It is not often realised that if we make a phone call to at least one of our big national airlines, it is probable that we will be processed through computing centres elsewhere in the world, without necessarily realising that. That is a result of the way that communications technology has developed.
We also need to look closely at the payment systems. The integration of payment into the process of information will transform many of our shopping habits. It will also be a big indicator of how the industry is likely to develop. I know that that is being looked at in various ways in terms of Internet, or at least the super-highway network. Some of the experts in the City and in business are producing some fascinating ideas.
I do not have time tonight to deal with other matters such as security and intellectual property rights. However, before I finish my speech, I want to put into a better context some of the debate that followed the publication of the Command Paper. This relates to a point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
There has been a suggestion that the super-highway will not happen in the UK simply because British Telecom has been prevented from conveying or providing entertainment on its infrastructure. That is simply not the case. BT was quite capable of bidding—as, indeed, it did initially—for any of the cable franchises on offer. It decided not to pursue that. In doing so, it left it open for other cable companies and their investors to take up the cable franchises, to invest in them and to build them out. We have made commitments to them that we will not undermine.

Therefore, BT's position will not be reviewed prematurely and the date for review has been set at 2001.
BT is free to do virtually everything else that it is minded to do. I remind the House of the BT press release of 22 November, pursuant to the Command Paper, which said:
BT will therefore be pressing ahead as already announced with multimedia investment where regulation allows it on commercially viable terms, including installing fibre to most businesses with five or more lines by the end of the decade, developing applications for education, health and community services, trialling new network technologies…and developing interactive television on demand services to the home.
I warmly welcome that. It puts in a much better picture some of the critical comment made in the press.
The BT director of procurement and research was quoted in The Sunday Times of 20 November—actually just ahead of the Command Paper—as saying:
government regulations banning BT from transmitting simultaneous broadcast services over its network were no longer as serious because future services over fibre will be individually interactive and on demand.
I absolutely agree with that. It is the most exciting part of the super-highways. No longer will the customer have to wait to see what is delivered to him; he Will be able to demand, choose and readjust the services on offer from the provider, whether it be BT, the cable companies or, ultimately, any of the other television channels. The interactive nature of the super-highways is the most exciting part. I know that BT will play an active part in its development, alongside the cable industry.
I hope that that puts the strength of the Government's policies in context. I have no doubt that, as the Minister with responsibility for technology and the co-ordinator of the Government's policy on the super-highways, I have one of the most fascinating jobs in government. There is also no doubt that industry in this country is responding well. We would like there to be more UK-based software, and the DTI is considering how it might help the industry.
However, there is no question that, in relation to the rest of the European Union, Britain is well ahead of the game. If we were catching up with the Americans faster than we are now, I should be much happier, but for a long time there has been a different attitude to access in the home to information technology. The culture change which has happened in America will perhaps take time to reach us. We have nothing to be ashamed of but everything to gain from pushing ahead as fast as we can possibly go. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover on giving me the opportunity to respond to the debate.

International Station (Stratford)

Mr. David Amess: We have reached a point in our proceedings when it is judged that the body is at its lowest ebb. The case for Stratford having an international railway station is certainly not at its lowest ebb. I would go further: the support for the railway station is gathering momentum u7 and down the country and particularly in the House of Commons.
The House may be puzzled about what could possibly bring together Basildon and Newham. It certainly is not politics. I am a Conservative Member of Parliament and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is a socialist Member of Parliament. It is clear that the point which unites us all is Newham itself. It is the place where I was born and where I have spent most of my life. So regardless of my good fortune in representing Basildon, I take a keen interest in everything that happens in Newham.
In my early years I despaired of much that was happening in Newham. I saw it as decay. It is a delight now to see Newham, through the good offices of a range of people, being regenerated. When I drive back later today, I shall see Stratford station in all its glory. There are many other signs which I welcome, and I pay tribute to the people who have made that possible.
I fought four elections in Newham, all in the 1970s. I fought two council elections, one GLC election and one parliamentary election. I am sorry to say that I was the runner-up on each occasion. I do not intend to be the runner-up on this issue. We intend to win. We are determined that Stratford railway station should gain international recognition. To achieve that end, we formed only last week a parliamentary support group. I was impressed with the presentation that we enjoyed at the meeting. The only thing that separates me and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is that he is the chair of that group and I am the chairman. Other than that, colleagues from all parties in the House will support our group. It seeks to persuade Members that Stratford deserves recognition as an international railway station.
I congratulate and pay tribute to the officers of Newham council and particularly the business consortium which is backing the project, on their impressive and professional presentation. On every count, the Government should support the case for Stratford international railway station. They should certainly support it on economic grounds as the Stratford promoter group has shown that the international passenger station can be produced at no cost whatever to the Government.
We should support the international station for the sake of docklands. Baroness Thatcher rightly inspired the docklands development. I am delighted to see Canary wharf now more than 60 per cent. occupied. I am also delighted to see the new railway station that is being built just outside the precincts of the House. The disruption annoys some people but that work is another step forward. If we want docklands to succeed, Stratford is the ideal location for the railway station. I was delighted also to be taken to the top of Holden point, to see the 200-acre brownfield site, which is ideal for the station. That project is also important to Newham in terms of job creation.

I and other Members of Parliament representing Essex constituencies are behind the railway station being located there.
Incidentally, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and other hon. Friends representing Essex constituencies hoped to attend this debate. If they cannot be here in person, they are certainly here in spirit.
A Stratford station would satisfy all the Government's key objectives. It was said that
our decision means that the line will be built through east London, where the prospect is welcomed for the economic regeneration that it will bring.
Those are not my words, but those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the former Secretary of State for Transport. He also said:
It is envisaged that the high-speed train from the channel tunnel to King's Cross will stop at Stratford".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 26–34.]
If there is no station at Stratford, however, there can be no regeneration based on the channel tunnel rail link in east London. All the regeneration benefits would flow to Kent, leading to a further decline in east London. The east Thames corridor concept, now called Thames gateway, makes the connection between regeneration and the CTRL.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration described Stratford and the royal docks as the western focus of the Thames gateway. If the objectives are to be realised, a station must be located at the CTRL at Stratford. The Dartford Ebbsfleet station is the complementary eastern focus.
Union Railways, in its report of March 1993, specified three important objectives. First is the international objective of providing a link between Britain and Europe. Some weeks ago, hon. Members were invited to travel on Eurostar, and I accepted. Some propaganda suggested that the British had done nothing to enhance Waterloo station but that everything was wonderful in Europe. As we travelled at 178 mph through the channel tunnel, I felt very proud. When we alighted at Brussels Midi, far from a haven of investment, I would describe that station as a dump. Waterloo International is magnificent and, sadly, Brussels Midi is a dump. That puts the issue in context.
Britain's planning laws are quite different from those of other countries. In terms of the link that I hope will be debated next year, real issues must be grasped—particularly by hon. Members representing Kent constituencies. That is another reason why I believe that everything is in place for Stratford railway station. I am totally behind the link through the channel tunnel and I believe that Stratford offers a marvellous opportunity to enhance the scheme.
The second objective is that of the commuter. The station could help to provide a major increase in the capacity and quality of journeys between Kent, Essex and London—and, my goodness, we need some enhancement there.
The third objective—this is critical to the Government's strategic and regional objectives—is the development objective of providing the transport spine for the east Thames corridor development, shifting pressure from the west to the east of London. Both the London and southeast regional planning conference and the London planning advisory committee support that objective. If


development leapfrogs east London to Ebbsfleet because there is no station at Stratford, development pressure will certainly be unrelieved in west London. The House should reflect carefully on the repercussions for us all if that happens.
A firm decision—I make this point to my hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard—to locate an intermediate station at Stratford is required to underpin other Government strategic decisions. Stratford, located at the foot of the Lea valley corridor initiative, is eligible for European regional development fund objective 2 funding. I am delighted to say that Stratford, through the initiative of the local authority, has recently been successful in its bid for single regeneration budget funding. I know that that is warmly welcomed.
The transport arguments for Stratford international may be summarised as follows. Stratford will permit much faster journeys to the continent from east London, East Anglia and Essex. It will take 20 minutes less than going from St. Pancras. The same applies to docklands, an area that will capitalise on close links with Europe. Stratford will also provide marginally quicker journeys to the continent from the City of London.
I went to see the docks, together with one your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the City airport was built there. It is magnificent to see the important effect that the airport has had on the area. Again, that is a good link with Stratford railway station. Stratford also provides the public transport solution for travellers from East Anglia, Essex and east London. If Stratford station is not built, passengers from those locations will—I know that this is an extraordinary expression—use kiss and ride at Ebbsfleet. Every rail journey will thus be replaced by two car journeys over the Dartford crossing, which would be nonsense. That could deter potential growth in CTRL users from East Anglia and Essex.
By dispersing flows of commuters and south-east international passengers, Stratford will enable the heavy cost of expanding underground capacity at St. Pancras to be avoided. Crossrail will call at Stratford's existing station, poaching passengers from the heart of the Heathrow catchment area, west London and, dare I say it to my hon. Friend the Minister, Slough and Reading. The Stratford promoter group's proposals include a passenger interchange between CTRL and crossrail. The station at Stratford will complement the existing and planned interchanges at Stratford.
I now turn briefly to the transport business case. The transport case implies extra business and extra revenue for Union Railways and the successful bidder. A modest estimate suggests that an international station at Stratford will produce £20 million extra revenue for Union Railways and £5 million for the station operator. The Union Railways model is incapable of forecasting the extra business or extra revenue, because it uses a fixed-trip matrix based primarily on observed travel through Heathrow and Gatwick and therefore hugely underestimates the demand from east London, Essex and East Anglia.
The latest London area transport survey issued by my hon. Friend's Department shows the scale of the error that has resulted. The same errors apply to the whole of east London and East Anglia. Seventy per cent. of the population of East Anglia and all the population of Essex live in the Liverpool Street-Stratford catchment area, and services to King's Cross-St Pancras are simply not an

option for the great majority of those people. It is quite wrong to encourage people from Essex to drive via Dartford to Ebbsfleet when a perfectly good public transport alternative can be provided via Stratford.
Railtrack East Anglia handles 300,000 passengers a day, is the same size of "business" as the Kent zone and has the largest infrastructure investment programme of all the Railtrack zones: some £200 million has been invested in signalling alone. The three counties of East Anglia are Cambridgeshire—including the Prime Minister's constituency—with a population of 690,000; Norfolk, with a population of 767,000; and Suffolk, with a population of 657,000. If Essex and East Anglia are added, along with an estimate for eastern Hertfordshire, we arrive at a figure of 3.5 million.
There are also regeneration issues. The LPAC-Hausner report concluded that experience in France gained through the TGV projects suggests that major developments of regional significance will occur only in inner-city fringe areas, not in city centres or out-of-city locations. The establishment of Stratford international station will herald a mixed-use development including business park, industry, office, retail, hotel, leisure and residential uses. It is a magnificent proposal, providing the desperately needed potential for 15,000 new jobs, nearly 1,800 new homes and environmental improvements. If implemented, it will protect nearly 67,000 existing jobs. Training schemes will be offered, and the bid aims to provide opportunities for jobs during the CTRL construction period.
I know that one Minister, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, knows Newham only too well. He has been to the borough a number of times to see at first hand all the different initiatives that the local authority wishes to implement.
Finally, . let me deal with the economic issues. The LPAC-Hausner report concluded that new rail infrastructure could be used as a spur to significant economic development. The SPG's proposals suggest that inward investment will create new jobs at Stratford—4,000 by the millennium, 15,000 by 2015, and 40,000 jobs in the royal docks. As I have said, the international station will safeguard 67,000 jobs in east London. An area with well over 114,000 people unemployed within a five-mile radius will gain much from the project. It will create an inflow of construction capital of £235 million from the SPG proposal, and create a general uplift in land values. The international station will have a major regenerative impact.
There is widespread support for Stratford from the LPAC, SERPLAN, London First, the Confederation of British Industry and the East Anglian local authorities. There is business and local public support. Yesterday evening, I was delighted to receive a letter from the City of London corporation which is watching the project closely. It has held talks with the local authority and is very keen on the project.
Let there be no doubt that many hon. Members will not let the matter rest. There is support among all parties for Stratford to be an international railway station. The message is being spread not only throughout the House, the other place, Newham, Basildon and Essex, but throughout the country. The local authority, local Members of Parliament and the SPG deserve to have their


case judged fairly. If it is judged fairly on every count, Stratford should become an international railway station. We are determined that that will happen.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on choosing this subject for debate. We endorse every single word that he has uttered. It is a privilege to follow him and say that we in Newham are very grateful for his support. We know of his connections with the borough and welcome the fact that he has always worked constructively with the borough council and local Members of Parliament. We acknowledge that he has roots in the area and it is a privilege on this occasion to be able to extend the hand of friendship across the Chamber to a member of the Conservative party. We are grateful for all that he has done for the borough to which he is still greatly attached and with which he has worked closely.
I cannot say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will win Basildon at the next election and, although I have not consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), perhaps I might suggest that, should he lose, he will always have a place in Newham working with us, perhaps even in a paid appointment, to promote the case for Stratford as an international station. The hon. Gentleman has done a great deal of good work for us and I hope that he remains on our side.
The hon. Gentleman has made most of the points that I wanted to make and I shall not repeat them all, but some need to be stressed. We need the international station at Stratford, not just because it would be good for the area but because it is the key to the regeneration of that part of east London, through the Thames corridor and into the south-east of England. It is an international decision and I hope that the Government will acknowledge that.
We have had occasion to invite any number of Transport and Environment Ministers to Stratford to have a look at what we have to offer and they have all made useful comments. I hope that the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), will also take the opportunity to inspect the land. We recently took the President of the Board of Trade to Holden point to show him, as we have shown others, the extent of the land available for development. As the hon. Member for Basildon said, there are 200 acres of brown development land available for the international station and ancillary developments. If one looks at it, the case is obvious. That is the important point.
We have always felt that we do not have to overdo our argument. Our case is good, and it is not simply a matter of local Members of Parliament getting enthusiastic about a local case. Obviously we will do that, but because of the cross-party support, and the fact that if people go and have a look at what we have to offer they become as enthusiastic as we are, we have always been able to rely on the quality of our case. We do not have to push it heavily; we feel that it is almost self-evident. But we want a little more support from Government and a little more acknowledgement that there is a good case, which they are prepared to accept for the benefit of the people not only of Newham but of Basildon and the rest of Essex, and indeed of Britain as a whole.
I want to raise one or two points with the Minister. For instance, I have a personal interest, which I shall now declare. The channel tunnel railway route that has been selected, which we shall discuss early next year, not only comes right through Newham but passes directly underneath my house. That is why I am making a personal point.
I do not mind that; I really do not care at all. But for obvious reasons I would rather my house did not fall into the tunnel. That does not worry me too much, but it seems to bother my wife a bit. There are several environmental considerations that I hope the Minister will address—or at least, if he does not deal with them tonight I hope that he will cause Union Railways to address them. Although we are enthusiastic for the station at Stratford, we are not unmindful of the fact that environmental considerations are involved.
As the hon. Member for Basildon said, there is enormous local public support. He did not give all the figures, but I have the figures from the opinion polls, and 77 per cent. of Newham residents support the Stratford proposal; 85 per cent. of those in the Stratford area support it, and 80 per cent. expect that a station would revitalise both that area and Newham; 84 per cent of businesses in the area support the proposal. So there is enormous support.
However, one should not take that support for granted and say, "Well, that's fine; we don't have to worry about environmental considerations then." We are worried that we are not getting the sort of information that we should be getting from Union Railways. I have looked at the route and, as I said, it goes immediately under my property in Forest Gate, neither to the left nor the right. It looks to me as though the epicentre of the tunnel will be immediately below my living room.
That is fine. Perhaps we could think about having an extra stop so that I can come straight up into my living room, or descend from my living room on to a train going to Paris or Brussels. I would not mind. But there are matters that must be sorted out. We do not know how much vibration and reradiated noise and so on will come from the chosen route, and Union Railways is not being as open as it should be with the people who live in the area. The company does not seem able to offer the kind of information that we require. We are enthusiastic, but we know that there are environmental considerations, and personal considerations for those who live in the area, not least my own family. Will the Minister ask Union Railways to address those matters a little more readily than it is doing at the moment?
We are arguing for the station not only because it will be good for the area but because it makes a lot of transport sense. The Government are putting a great deal of money into transport infrastructure development in the Stratford area, although the Central line upgrading is not working too well as yet.
Here I shall digress slightly if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday morning I was travelling in to do a live broadcast on Radio 4, so there was some immediacy involved in my journey on the Central line. I took one of the new trains on the Central line which went from Stratford to Mile End and then stopped. Nothing happened. The driver then announced that he was very sorry and said, "Would all passengers sitting at the end of


a row please stand up because I think that that is the only way we can get the doors to close? If they don't close, I will have to take this train out of commission."
That was a brand-new train on the Central line on which £750 million is being spent. That line is now being described as the new misery line. Something is going badly wrong here. If all that money is going into the Central line, but it has taken over from the Northern line as the misery line, there are clearly problems. While we acknowledge the Government's investment, something is clearly amiss if we end up having to stand up at the end of a row on a new Central line train in order to try to get the doors to close.
In the event, the doors on that train did not close and it was taken out of service. I immediately bolted across the platform at Mile End and jumped on a Metropolitan line train going towards Liverpool Street. That train went about 150 yd into the tunnel and then stopped because there was a signal failure somewhere in the South Kensington area.
There are many problems which Ministers must address. Even though there has been an uptake recently, there has been an historic under-investment in our public transport system in London. That does not serve us well in terms of our competition with other capital cities. People who relocate into London will obviously look at our transport system and if it does not work and it is not reliable, that will be a deterrent. Transport is crucial to the economic viability of a city such as London.
Returning to the Stratford case, a great deal of investment is being made in the area. We have the docklands light railway and we may have crossrail. I hope that that will be revived. We have the North London line and the Liverpool Street line goes from Gidea Park. We have docklands with all the development that is being carried out there. We also have the City airport and links to the M11. All the transport infrastructure is there or is being prepared there. Stratford makes a great deal of sense. It seems crazy to have all that development, but then not make the other links that would enable that development to achieve a point of success that would unite the parties in the House and do a great deal for the east end and for the south-east.
The hon. Member for Basildon has made all the points about the number of jobs involved and protecting existing jobs and creating new jobs. There is something to be said for that. Stratford was a traditional railway area. British Rail Engineering Ltd. used to be in Stratford. Plenty of people in the area have that tradition and experience of working on the railways. They could use that experience and expertise to help the promotion that we discussing tonight.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will acknowledge that we have a good case. I have not said a single nasty word about Ebbsfleet. I am not trying to trade Stratford off against Ebbsfleet. If I were drafting the Bill, things would have been different. However, we have what has been proposed. Within the Bill, the long box preserves Stratford as a station. We are looking with the promoter group to make a case to the constructors that will enable us to say, "Here is a good case for an international station at Stratford."
As the hon. Member for Basildon said—I underline this fact—there is close partnership between the local authority and the public agencies which the Government

are supporting, such as city challenge, and the private sector in the Newham area. Together, we have a broad partnership, without ideology and without rancour. It is based on the justification and the quality of our case. I hope that the Minister will look objectively at what we put forward, will listen to us, and will say that we have a good case that the Government are prepared to support.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his success in securing it. I welcome his generous words about the changes in Newham being led by the local authority, working in partnership with a great variety of other organisations. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for the consistency and diligence with which they have supported the provision of an international station at Stratford. That one project is the key to major beneficial change in east London. It is our once-in-a-hundred-years opportunity to change the nature of east London for the better, for good. I join my hon. Friend in urging that the green light be given to the project as soon as possible.
The starting point for my contribution is the Government's own existing commitment to a station at Stratford. In his statement to the 1991 Conservative party conference and subsequently in discussion on that occasion with Newham council's then leader of the opposition, who was attending that conference, the former Secretary of State for Transport made it clear that it was intended to route the channel tunnel rail link through east London in order to secure regeneration there and that that would be achieved through a station at Stratford. As the hon. Member for Basildon said, the Secretary of State returned to this Chamber and repeated those commitments. He said:
our decision means that the line will be built through east London, where the prospect is welcomed for the economic regeneration that it will bring.
He went on to answer a question, and he said:
It is envisaged that the high-speed train from the channel tunnel to King's Cross will stop at Stratford".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 26–34.]
Given those commitments, it is surprising and disappointing that, more than three years later, there is still uncertainty about whether those pledges will be fulfilled and whether the Stratford station will be built. I hope that that uncertainty will not last much longer. However, I am aware that there are people, not in the Government but elsewhere, who argue that the Secretary of State's commitments should be set aside.
There are those—I have it on good authority that it is the understanding in some parts of Union Railways—who claim that the Secretary of State never meant what he said in the first place, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, now the Secretary of State for Defence, made the announcement in order to relieve political difficulties in marginal constituencies in Kent and south London, and that, the 1992 general election safely out of the way, promises about regeneration in east London could be safely forgotten.
I do not believe those allegations. I dare say that the position in those marginal constituencies might have been a factor in some people's thinking, but I believe that the commitments about regeneration in east London were


genuine. The council in Newham and the residents in my borough believe that they were genuine. We have gone forward in good faith on that basis, and the Government must not now let us down.
There is another view that, although the commitments to regeneration made by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) were sincerely meant, they will be fulfilled by the development around the station which is proposed at Ebbsfleet. I have no quarrel with the green light which has been given for that project, because London local authorities have always recognised the case for an M25 station in addition to the station at Stratford, but the developments around Ebbsfleet could never be regeneration, as they are developments on a greenfield site around disused gravel pits. However desirable and welcome that might be, it is not what is meant by urban regeneration, and it is not what the Secretary of State had in mind in 1991.
Beyond that, the Secretary of State was specific in his statement that he was referring to economic regeneration in east London. Ebbsfleet is nowhere near east London. Development at Ebbsfleet would not constitute in any way the regeneration in east London to which the Secretary of State committed the Government. Development at Ebbsfleet alone would also fatally undermine the regeneration of east London to which the Government so firmly committed themselves with the London Docklands development corporation, the Jubilee line and the other initiatives to which hon. Members referred previously.
I emphasise that important point. The London planning advisory committee— the statutory body which represents all the London boroughs and the City of London corporation— expressed the point with great force and clarity. In its 1994 "Advice on Strategic Planning Guidance for London", and in other reports on the issue in the past year or so, it has said:
the provision of an international station at Stratford, with the necessary public sector support, is seen by LPAC as a pre-requisite to securing regeneration in East London and for LPAC to continue to support the easterly alignment of the channel tunnel rail link.
If Ebbsfleet were the only international station to be provided, serious detriment to the cause of regeneration in East London would result. The task, important to Government, of securing new economic development for inner East London would be impaired because business and investors would be attracted out of London to where access to the European railway exists. This would reinforce the spiral of decline in the inner part of the metropolis".
If the Government's commitment to a station at Stratford were to be abandoned, not only would there be none of the regeneration which the Secretary of State promised, but there would be a sucking away of investment which might have been attracted to east London and which would instead relocate to the M25 and Ebbsfleet. The development would leapfrog east London for the M25, wrecking the prospects for the economic regeneration which the line was intended to achieve in east London. The reality is that the only way in which the Secretary of State's commitment can be honoured is by giving the green light to the international and domestic passenger station at Stratford.
There is a third ground on which it might be supposed that the 1991 commitment could be set aside. That is that the Government's policy has changed and that the commitment to regeneration in east London which existed three years ago no longer applies. I do not believe that

that is the case, and I do not believe that Ministers would argue that it is. From what I have seen of the development of Government policy in the past three years, the policy support for the station at Stratford has hardened substantially.
The Government have obtained European regional development funding for the Lee valley, which contains Stratford. Stratford has been given city challenge funding and, as the hon. Member for Basildon mentioned, Ministers announced two weeks ago the go-ahead for the major single regeneration budget project at Stratford. Stratford has been described by the local government Minister as the "apex of the Thames gateway"—another important Government initiative which was unveiled recently.
In March this year the Government issued planning policy guidance note No. 13 which deals with transport. Paragraph 1.8 advises that planning and land use policies should
promote development within urban areas, at locations highly accessible by means other than the private car, and locate major generators of travel demand in existing centres which are highly accessible by means other than the private car".
The Government's policy is clear: urban regeneration, or brownfield development, should be promoted at the expense of greenfield development. Development should be encouraged in locations with good public transport access and not just good car access. Government policy is for Stratford.
I return to my original point: the Government made a clear commitment in 1991 to using the channel tunnel rail link to secure regeneration in east London through an international station at Stratford. I believe that the Government meant it; they were not just having us on. It is clear that having a station only at Ebbsfleet would severely damage the prospects for regeneration in east London, and the Government's overall planning policies still point unequivocally to the Stratford station. The Government must not let us down.
The Stratford case wins on whatever criteria it is tested: regeneration, transport, business or financial. The 1991 census showed that Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets have the greatest concentration of urban deprivation in the United Kingdom. Stratford is where those three boroughs meet. There are today 115,000 unemployed people living within five miles of the proposed Stratford international station site. It is estimated that the station and the surrounding development should support 15,000 jobs by the year 2015, and will make a decisive contribution to the achievement of the 40,000 jobs which the London Docklands development corporation envisages in the royal docks.
For the past 15 years, the Government have been expressing their commitment to the regeneration of the area, but they have not just been talking about it. They have been investing through the LDDC, city challenge and the capital's biggest transport infrastructure projects. The question which the Government need to answer now is—did they mean it? Will they see it through, or abandon it half way? I think I know the answer to the question and, if I am right, the Government will say yes to Stratford.
Even without the regeneration considerations, there is an overwhelming case for the Stratford station. At peak times, there will be 15 trains per hour running up the high-speed rail link—five international trains and 10 domestic commuter trains. If all those passengers can get


out only at St. Pancras, there will be a 50 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using the underground at King's Cross. That could be managed only with enormous investment in the underground network serving King's Cross, and that is not a realistic proposition. There is a London Underground study on the proposal which is to be completed shortly, and I look forward very much to seeing the conclusions.
Even if the capacity could be provided, I do not see why one should compel people to go all the way into St. Pancras when they would be far better off changing at Stratford. People going to the City would be better off changing at Stratford and using the Central line, assuming that the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West can be resolved. Those passengers could use the Central line to go the City, rather than continuing on to St. Pancras and having to trundle back to Liverpool Street along the even worse Circle line.
People going to south London, Waterloo and Westminster would be better off changing at Stratford and using the Jubilee line. People going to docklands would be much better off changing at Stratford and using the docklands light railway. I have not mentioned the impact of crossrail, which my hon. Friend also referred to, and which I am sure will one day be built.
People going to Essex and East Anglia will be better off changing at Stratford and using the rail services to Norwich, Ipswich, Southend and elsewhere. Those people would save 20 minutes, and probably longer, on their journeys as a result of the international station at Stratford. We are not talking about a handful of people. As the hon. Member for Basildon explained, we are talking about Essex, East Anglia, Hertfordshire and east London—about one eighth of the entire UK population. We must not overlook the fact that, with the construction of the Ml l link road through east London and its spur to Stratford, there will be excellent motorway access directly to the Stratford station. I was speaking earlier this week to the chairman of the east London CBI, whose view was that missing out on Stratford station would be a gigantean missed opportunity. I know that the CBI's eastern region takes the same view.
Nobody declines to travel on inter-city trains from Euston because the trains stop at Watford junction, but many people travel by train from Watford junction who would not go all the way to Euston to catch the same train. Watford junction generates business for InterCity, and Stratford will do the same, but on a much larger scale, for the channel tunnel rail link. It has been estimated that a station at Stratford would generate additional annual revenue for the train operator of some £20 million.
It is unfortunate that the model developed for Union Railways by Coopers and Lybrand missed out on most of that potential, by assuming that international travellers would come from the same places as do people who travel to Heathrow and Gatwick—as if people from east London, Essex or East Anglia do not want to travel. That is nonsense, and it has severely undermined the work on which Union Railways' case is based. I am afraid that there have been two or three occasions when the case for Stratford has been misrepresented as a result of poor research and careless analysis.
The Stratford promoter group is an excellent example of just the kind of regeneration partnership that the Government have rightly said should be encouraged. It includes the key public and private sector players—

Newham council, the London Docklands development corporation, the University of East London, Land Securities, Britain's biggest property company, the Carpenters Company, whose historic landholdings in Stratford were established in the 18th century, P and 0 Developments and others.
The Stratford station project is not asking for massive Government investment, because it stands up commercially in its own right. As has already been said, local support for the project is huge—85 per cent. of Stratford residents want it. The project commands enormous support from local businesses, East Anglian local authorities and others.
Stratford international is the one big chance that we have to change the nature of east London for the better, for good. That has been clear since Newham council first backed the idea in 1988. We must not let the opportunity pass us by. I urge the Government not to delay for much longer and to give the go-ahead for that vital project as soon as possible. Then we would not waste the enormous investment that the Government have already made in east London, but build on it and complete it to secure success for the decades ahead and achieve the transformation in east London that we all want to see.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. Jahn Watts): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House yet again. I also thank the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) for the constructive contributions that they have made to the debate.
The route proposals have been the subject of a good deal of press attention in recent weeks, much of it misleading. That, in turn, has given rise to much confusion and misunderstanding about what has and has not been decided, particularly in respect of a possible intermediate station at Stratford. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.
It may be helpful if I start by explaining the process by which the Government have reached their decisions. I shall then describe the current position and how we see things moving forward to a final decision in the spring of next year.
The House will be aware of the role that Union Railways, an operating company owned by the British Railways Board, is playing in the development of the route proposals for the channel tunnel rail link. As part of that work, Union Railways and its consultants have been responsible for assessing options for intermediate stations. It is as a result of their advice that decisions about the choice of stations have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East questioned the basis of the underlying assumptions of Union Railways' recommendations on the choice of intermediate stations. It is possible to make different studies and to reach different conclusions. The decision reached is to leave open the option of a station at Stratford. That provides the opportunity for the promoter group—I recognise the strength of that group, which has brought together precisely the right type of combination of the public and private sectors—and its parliamentary supporters and the local authority to put across their evidence and views to


the consortiums, which have to bid for the concession. It will be possible for that group to make the economic case that those hon. Gentlemen have already made tonight.
Union Railways and its consultants initially looked at four intermediate station options—Ebbsfleet in Kent, Nashenden in Kent, Rainham in Essex and Stratford in east London. They worked closely with each of the station promoter groups and with the principal local authorities concerned. They looked at all the relevant issues, evaluating and comparing outline designs, passenger demand, road traffic and highway impacts, associated developments, the socio-economic impacts, environmental appraisals, cost-benefit analyses, contributions by third parties and safety considerations.
The results of that substantial body of work were summarised in the October 1993 report from Union Railways to the Government. That report was published and placed in the Library on 24 January this year, when the former Secretary of State for Transport—my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—announced the Government's decisions on much of the route for the channel tunnel rail link. Those decisions were that there was scope for one or, at the most, two intermediate stations between Ashford and St. Pancras. The Nashenden option had no private sector or local authority promoter or support and was therefore ruled out. The other three options were retained for further consideration. Of the two M25 parkway options, Ebbsfleet appeared clearly preferable to Rainham. The conclusion was that the economic case for a station at Stratford had yet to be made. My right hon. Friend also stressed that the provision of any intermediate stations on the rail link would be dependent on securing robust offers of financial support from the private sector.
Following my right hon. Friend's announcement, the Government asked Union Railways to carry out further work. In particular, it was asked to hold further discussions with each of the promoter groups supporting the three remaining station options, with a view to achieving the fullest possible understanding of their proposals.
Each promoter group was invited to refine its bids and, especially, to firm up its financing proposals. Each of the station promoter groups gave presentations to Ministers, and Ministers met hon. Members representing the areas affected by the proposals. I assure the House that no improper influence was brought to bear on the Government and no unfair advantage was given to any of the proposals. It was as a result of that exhaustive process of assessment alone that Ministers reached the decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 31 August.
My right hon. Friend announced that there would be a combined international and domestic station on the new rail link at Ebbsfleet in north Kent. That would be the parkway station. He said that no provision would be made for a station at Rainham, and that the option of a further station at Stratford would be left open for decision in March 1995, when bids from the four consortiums to build the rail link were received. I emphasise that the option of a further station at Stratford would be left open for decision next March. Readers of some press reports may be labouring under the assumption that we have announced already that there will be no station at

Stratford. It is important for those who are still supporting Stratford, and for the four bidding consortiums, to be clear that the option is still wide open.
An international station would undoubtedly assist the regeneration of the Stratford area. The hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Newham, North-East, who know the area much better than I do, have explained with great clarity how they see such a station assisting the area. I say in response to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that I would be happy to accept an invitation to see the Stratford site and to have the proposals explained in greater detail, as I understand my predecessors in office have done.
An international station would certainly aid the regeneration of the Stratford area. The Union Railways study, however, gave rise to concerns about its impact on the operation of the rail link and the viability of the entire project. It is on that point that the promoter group needs to make its case to the consortiums. As part of the tendering process, we have asked the four bidding consortiums to enter bids on the basis of, first, combined international and domestic stations at both Ebbsfleet and Stratford; secondly, a combined station at Ebbsfleet and an international-only station at Stratford; and thirdly, a combined station only at Ebbsfleet. That means that all the permutations of Ebbsfleet and Stratford can be thoroughly examined.
Meanwhile, we have included within the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which received its First Reading on 23 November, powers to grant outline planning permission for the station at Ebbsfleet and powers to construct an enlarged open concrete "box" at Stratford. The box would allow for both cross-over and emergency exit, but, importantly, would allow station platforms and fittings to be installed if it is decided that a station should be provided there.
The decisions that have been taken on intermediate stations are entirely consistent with the original thinking behind the easterly route, which was to secure as much of the regeneration benefit of the rail link as possible in the Thames gateway area.
I acknowledge that a station at Ebbsfleet, if there is a station only at Ebbsfleet, shifts the focal point, but I would not accept that, if there were not to be a station at Stratford, east London would receive no economic regeneration benefits. Earlier, hon. Members commented on the substantial investment in infrastructure, transport, and so on, that is being made in east London; obviously, that would provide opportunities for the benefits of the channel tunnel rail link also to influence the development potential of the area. However, I do not minimise the substantial additional benefits that would come to Stratford if it were to have a station.
Although I do not doubt that the enhancement of development potential that would flow from the Stratford station is important, it remains true that, on the advice that we have received from Union Railways as the promoter and through its consultants, the economic case for an additional station at Stratford has not yet been made, but we have an open mind on that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East met me shortly before the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 31 August, and I indicated to him as well as I could then that that was still the case, although I could not at that stage anticipate the announcement.
I assure my hon Friend the Member for Basildon and the hon. Members for Newham, North-East, for Newham, North-Eest and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who are now in the Chamber, that our minds are open. If they can convince the consortiums bidding for the concession of the powerful case, which has been put forward on behalf of the promoter group, that a station at Stratford would generate additional traffic on the rail link, not merely divert it from other stations, and that an additional stopping point would not reduce capacity on the line, and therefore reduce revenue for that purpose, or if they can convince one or two of the consortiums that there is merit in taking those economic benefits and the revenues that would flow from that additional traffic into their bid, the position of a station at Stratford may yet be secured.
I hope that hon. Members appreciate, from what I have said this morning, that there is still everything to play for in relation to an intermediate station at Stratford. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently accepted an invitation from the promoter group to hear its proposals for himself at first hand, and I have said that I would be happy to do so as well. I am sure that seeing the site and hearing the case in detail and at first hand will inform the decisions which, ultimately, the Secretary of State will take, but to which I hope to make a contribution, in spring 1995.
We welcome the fact that the Stratford promoter group is proceeding with discussions with the four bidding consortiums. The Government have given the Stratford group the opportunity to make its case for a station directly to the bidders, and I believe that that is the best way to proceed.
I conclude by referring to two other ancillary matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I am aware of complaints that the flow of information from Union Railways to the local authorities on the route has not always been what those local authorities would wish. We discussed that matter recently at the high-level forum. I have done, and will continue to do, what I can to ensure that that flow of information improves.
Obviously, as we approach the start of parliamentary proceedings on the Bill, it is important and sensible that as many potential problems as possible are resolved before the need to petition, or to consider changes to the Bill, arises. It appears to me to be common sense that that process is assisted if the flow of information is as rapid and open as possible.
I shall draw the difficulties of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the Central line and on the Metropolitan line to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who has responsibility for those matters in London, which, happily, are not my responsibilities.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East for a useful and constructive debate. I am sure that their constituents in Newham will value the vigour with which they have presented the case. Clearly, I can say nothing about any decision that might be made, not least because we do not yet have the evidence before us, but I can assure them that we will be even-handed, objective and open-minded in the way in which we view whatever the bidding consortiums suggest to us about a station at Stratford. I wish the promoter group well, although I cannot say that at the end of the day I will deliver it a victory.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: First, I present my deep apologies to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for my bad timekeeping and to my hon. Friends because I did not hear all that they had to say. The Minister, in his general tone and in his summing up, has typified what is undoubtedly an all-party or non-party occasion. Most people in east London will say, "A curse on both your heads."
I have a chance to introduce a topic that has not yet been fully aired and to bring to the attention of the Government and the public some additional potential of Stratford which might appeal even to Her Majesty's Government.
The Minister has rightly emphasised that the options are still open, but he has narrowed them down to the option of one of the four consortiums that are now bidding for the operation. In effect, therefore, the builders of the railway have the choice.
The railway is there. The box is there; it may need enlarging slightly if platforms are established, but the Government have made it clear that the additional cost of building some terminals, over and above the platforms or perhaps including them, would have to be for the consortiums. That would be justified if they thought that the traffic and the benefits to them in terms of commercial advantage would be worth while.
I want to put the case to the Government, on the basis of strategic planning, and to the consortiums indirectly—representatives of which my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) have been meeting—that almost everybody will gain from the Stratford location through strategic planning and public transport, particularly the rail network, not just in Greater London but throughout south-east England and beyond.
The Government and the public are now saying that we must get to grips with balancing the railways—whether publicly or privately owned, that is not the issue today—road transport and our planning objectives. The Government have made known their views about out-of-town shopping centres, motorways, and so on. We welcome that because we in London may not be on all fours about the solution or its funding, but we are, probably for the first time in many years, on all fours about the objectives.
There is no doubt that the route of the channel tunnel rail link could play, and perhaps will play in any case, as the Minister has outlined, a part in the balance of the Thames corridor, whatever is ultimately decided about Stratford.
The matter hinges on the commercial viability of whatever minimum extra capital is involved for a through station at Stratford, and any effect that it might have on the viability, speed or efficiency of the railway would be a minus. It is true that a two-line railway may need an acceleration zone at either end for any trains that are stopping, whether they be south-east England commuter traffic or international trains. Given that one can start immediately after a through train, any delay as a result of stopping would have minimal effect on the flow and capacity of fast trains on the line. That is a railway operational fact, especially when it concerns the signal sections for stopping trains that are accelerating away from the station.
I want to talk about the existing connections from Stratford by fast rail link, even without crossrail. I must be slightly careful because the Minister represents Slough—although I know that he would be objective—and one of the great potentials of crossrail is the advantages that that controversial route will confer on London.
Even without crossrail, more than a dozen routes from Stratford currently exist or are likely to built—for example, the Woolwich tunnel which, by next May, will extend one of the routes that already exists to north Woolwich. Those 12 routes run from the focus of Stratford. I am counting the Central line in both directions, taking account of the fact that it divides into two in north-east London. That is a remarkable fact.
In a memorandum that I sent to the former Minister I analysed the lines—more than 180 stations in Greater London connect directly to Stratford, and would be connected if it were an international station. It would not be difficult to have a travelator between the domestic station—with its connections to the docklands light railway—and an international station. That would open up a tremendous and complementary catchment area to the King's Cross location. If we add the two together, it is a considerable catchment area.
King's Cross-St. Pancras, the accepted station, is also well connected, but to a rather different range of stations. Of course, being in the centre of London its auxiliary capacity for handling excess traffic, especially for road connection, is very limited. Therefore, a station at Stratford could be an important complementary location. It is not unknown for trains to Paddington, because of some fault, to have to terminate at Reading or Slough, or at Clapham junction for those going to Waterloo. That happens even on the best-run railway. An alternative station might be useful as a safety factor.
I want to describe the extraordinary spider's web reaching out from Stratford. There is the line to Cambridge and the airport at Stansted. A short spur,

which already exists, could take a line to Chingford. I have already referred to the Woodford and Epping branch of the Central line. There is the Wanstead and Hainault branch. There are suburban trains to Chelmsford and Colchester. There is the Ipswich, Harwich and Norwich line and the London-Tilbury-Southend line through Forest Gate. The reinstatement of the junction is a controversial matter, but at least it is already there. There is the line to the royal docks, the DLR to Canary Wharf and on to Lewisham, and the Mile End-City-west end branch of the Central line. Last, but not least, there is the important north London link line around north London via Highbury and all the way to Richmond. I am sure that the Minister will not mind me mentioning one of my 20-year-old hobby horses. With a Greenwich tunnel, or even without it, there would be a circle of electrified railway for a possible London ringway. All those would be accessible from Stratford.
Bearing in mind everybody's wish to maintain a balanced transport system—not least my hon. Friends who represent Hackney—there could be nominated stations on any of those lines for extra car parking, some sort of ticket or handling facility or perhaps even through-luggage trolleys. There is scope for enormous ingenuity, which I suggest would add to the commercial attraction of whoever won the competition. It would be to their advantage to have the additional capacity.
I have not mentioned trains from outside the Greater London and immediate south-east area. Stratford is well connected with the Great Western. There is the London North-Western line—I am using the old nomenclature—the Euston line, the Midland line from St. Pancras and the Great Northern line. Those are existing links. It would be possible for trains from other parts of Britain heading for different destinations on the continent, particularly at night, to call at Stratford for auxiliary purposes. There could be flexibility of traffic, and so on.
On strategic planning grounds, the benefits for the railways, the operators, the people of London, and in particular the London borough of Newham, of the Stratford site for an international station are much greater than some have perhaps realised. I commend them to the Minister and to the four consortiums.

East Timor

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On 10 December, we marked international human rights day. That annual event is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the ways in which countless people all over the world continue to be denied their basic rights and freedoms. It is also an opportunity to take stock of our foreign policy and the record of the international community in alleviating the suffering of thousands of people. The series of programmes that have appeared on the BBC this week, which have marked international human rights day, and the 10,000 calls that the BBC has received so far, are a sign of the seriousness with which many people in the United Kingdom view human rights.
The long and well-documented record of human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor remains one of the greatest challenges to the international community in fulfilling its obligation to promote and protect human rights. In many ways, the record of the international community in meeting the challenge illustrates its failure to give human rights the priority that they deserve.
Human rights, security, trade and the environment are issues which, in an increasingly interdependent world, must be addressed collectively. However, the international community can be effective only with the political will and the support of individual Governments. In Indonesia, the United Kingdom's response to human rights violations has been sadly inadequate.
With a group of other parliamentarians, I was one of the people who visited Indonesia and East Timor in March 1989. As a result of what I saw and heard at that time, in August that year I addressed the decolonisation committee of the United Nations in New York on the subject of East Timor. I urged the rights of the East Timorese under the decolonisation procedures to a referendum on the way in which they wished to be governed.
Human rights violations have persisted on an alarming scale in Indonesia since the military coup of 1965, which brought the present Government to power. The slaughter of between 500,000 and 1 million people following the 1965 coup established a dangerous precedent for dealing with political opponents. In East Timor, 200,000 people—one third of the population—were killed or died of starvation or disease after Indonesia invaded in 1975. Between 1989 and 1993, at least 2,000 civilians were killed in Aceh during counter-insurgency operations. Hundreds of people have been killed in Irian Jaya over the past 15 years—many as a result of their peaceful opposition to integration with Indonesia.
Political killings are not the only example of fundamental human rights violations in Indonesia and blatant flouting of the international human rights declaration. Criminal and political prisoners have been routinely tortured and ill-treated—some so severely that they died or suffered permanent injury. That is regardless of the fact that torture is prohibited under the Indonesian criminal code as well as in international law.
National laws and regulations have not prevented torture and ill treatment. Neither have they been effective in bringing those responsible to justice. As a result., torture and ill treatment have become institutionalised in the security forces. The substantial Amnesty report "Power

and Impunity", published a few weeks ago, provides the most recent documentation of violations of human rights in Indonesia and East Timor.
Thousands of people have been imprisoned following show trials, solely for their peaceful political or religious views. An estimated 3,000 prisoners have been held on political charges since 1966. Most were convicted after unfair trials. Many others were detained without charge, or trial for as long as 14 years. Some disappeared in custody.
The price paid by the advocates of independence in Aceh and Irian Jaya—Islamic activists, former PKI members, university students, farmers, workers and human rights activists—for exercising their right to freedom of expression is imprisonment and sometimes death.
When trials are held, they routinely fail to meet international standards of fairness. Once charges are filed, guilt is assumed and conviction is a foregone conclusion. Defendants are often refused access to lawyers, and lawyers are often denied access to vital documents. Defendants are frequently convicted on uncorroborated evidence and confessions extracted under duress. Evidence of ill treatment, torture and other irregularities are routinely ignored by the courts.
Such practices would cause public outrage in this country, yet we are in danger of appearing to condone them by our failure, and that of the international community, to respond in a manner commensurate with practices in Indonesia.
There has been much public disquiet at the extent and persistence of human rights violations in East Tirnor following its illegal occupation by Indonesia in 1975. Although Indonesia declared East Timor its 27th province in July 1976, its sovereignty has never been recognised by the UN or the United Kingdom.
Evidence from many quarters is regularly brought: to the attention of the UN, proving the responsibility of the Indonesian Government for systematic human rights violations in East Timor, yet the international community has all but turned its back on the struggle by the people of East Timor for independence and justice. Because it has done that, the international community must share responsibility for the long-standing human rights problem in East Timor.
Human rights violations in East Timor are not a thing of the past. In 1991, as many as 270 civilians were killed when Government troops opened fire on a peaceful procession in the Santa Cruz cemetery in Dili. Most were shot while attempting to flee and others were beaten and stabbed. There were reports that dozens of people, including witnesses, were killed in the following weeks. Some were recovering from their wounds in a military hospital.
Following the Santa Cruz massacre, the UN and many Governments expressed outrage at the action taken by Indonesian security forces. In March 1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed deep concern about continuing human rights violations in East Timor and offered several concrete recommendations for improvements. Yet with minor exceptions, the Indonesian Government have failed to comply with the spirit or the substance of the recommendations.
The catalogue of present atrocities in East Timor is worth placing on the record. In mid-November, during a series of pro-independence rallies in Dili, 124 people were


arrested by the security forces using batons, riot shields and tear gas. Most of the detainees were held for several days and were beaten and in other ways intimidated. About 30 people are still under arrest and likely to be charged.
The BBC's correspondent Catherine Napier reported on 8 December:
reports of beatings and electric shock treatment against the detainees are some of the worst to have emerged for many months.
She said that in the district south-west of Dili,
several youths regarded as potential trouble-makers were reported to have been stripped naked, beaten and tortured with electric shocks by the military.
As foreign journalists were present, the troops were under orders not to use fire power, but during the protest, there was great brutality.
One incident was reported by the BBC's correspondent Philip Short, who was present in Dili on 19 November when a protest took place outside the cathedral. On this occasion, the protest was peaceful until, as Short reported, police agents outside the cathedral started to throw rocks at the protesters. All hell broke loose as protesters were rounded up and chased, and foreign journalists present were also chased. A bystander who had offered to show a German television crew the way to their hotel was later severely beaten up by the security forces. The crew extricated him from the police and brought him to their hotel. He had blood streaming down his back and one side of his face was so swollen as to be unrecognisable. Philip Short added:
They thrashed the living daylights out of him… Now if the Indonesians mete out that kind of violence to people who were not involved in the demonstration, one can only too readily imagine what they do to people who were.
Asked by the New York Times on 22 November about suggestions that the security forces were more restrained, Bishop Belo, who is the Roman Catholic representative in East Timor, said:
They are the same, the same attitude.
Soon after the above incident, the military started ordering foreign journalists to leave. We know of at least seven journalists who were ordered to leave. The military clearly felt restrained by the journalists' presence and even blamed the journalists for inciting the protests. While the army has, apparently, refrained from slapping a blanket ban on foreign journalists, no permits are at present being issued. The absence of journalists is, of course, extremely serious as it gives the military a free hand.
At the end of November, the military commander of East Timor made it clear that no peaceful protests of any kind would be permitted in East Timor. He said:
If any more demonstrations occur, I will not hesitate to cut them to pieces"—
he used the Indonesian word "sikat", which means precisely that—
because…there is a limit to our patience.
The mid-November incidents brought into focus growing discontent in East Timor about the huge influx of Indonesians into the territory. No hard figures are available, but there could be well over 100,000 Indonesian settlers in the towns and countryside by now. They control

commerce and the administration, marginalising the East Timorese, who are being impoverished and left without jobs.
On 12 November a Timorese trader was stabbed to death by an Indonesian trader in a dispute at Becora market. That led to waves of violence against Indonesian shops and stores and the burning of vehicles. Such attacks are not part of the strategy of the resistance movement, but the outburst reflects a grave social problem that is certain to become worse as more and more ships arrive regularly in Dili with hundreds of settler families on board.
Bishop Belo recently announced that he was extremely concerned about the sterilisation of East Timorese women against their will, and was collecting data on the issue. He told John Pilger on the telephone that in a village that he visited recently nurses at the clinic told him that nine women were being readied for sterilisation without their consent. The Indonesians are clearly moving to alter the demographic composition of the population of East Timor.
On 7 December, the office of the Dili-based daily Suara Timor Timur was vandalised by youths from a pro-Government organisation renowned in many places for its thuggish practices. They chased and beat up the journalists. Their basic complaint related to the newspaper's reporting of the November incidents and atrocities. According to the Alliance of Independent Journalists, the security forces failed to give the newspaper any protection against the attack, or later when the thugs continued to threaten the office.
A theology graduate, Jose Antonio Neves, who was arrested by the police when he was just faxing a document abroad, is now on trial in Malang, East Java, on charges of rebellion which carry a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, or life. The charges mean that the most basic, legitimate act of keeping in touch with the outside world and sending out information about the situation inside East Timor is treated as a serious criminal offence carrying heavy penalties.
The November atrocities show that the situation in East Timor is extremely volatile, the army's grip on the territory very tight and the level of repression very high. The momentary opportunity to gain a glimpse of the level of protest—foreign journalists were allowed in on the occasion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit—reveals that East Timor is like a power keg that may explode at any time.
As Bishop Belo said in his interview with the New York Times on 22 November, the basic issue is not whether the army has been a bit more restrained recently, but the political issue of self-determination.
What is going on in East Timor is replicated in other parts of Indonesia. Exactly two months ago, four men were detained by military intelligence officers in Jakarta itself. Over two days and nights, they were grilled about their political beliefs and activities; they were beaten, kicked and given electric shocks by their interrogators. Holding a pistol to the head of one of the men, a military officer said, "This gun is loaded; I have the right to kill you."
What provoked the assault was the fact that the four men had released balloons with pro-democracy slogans such as "Uphold the rights of workers" and "The constitution guarantees freedom of assembly". Those four


men are not alone. Arbitrary arrest and torture of suspected Government critics has been routine in Indonesia and East Timor for years. In recent months, there has been a dramatic escalation in that kind of official harassment and intimidation. In August and September alone, the authorities broke up or prevented seminars, cultural events and professional meetings across the country by invoking an obscure law requiring police permission for meetings of more than five people. The banning of Indonesia's three leading news magazines in June has deepened the climate of fear among journalists.
In the run-up to November's APEC meeting—these incidents were well documented in the British press—the Government flooded Jakarta with 15,000 military and police officers to clear the streets of political and criminal undesirables in what they called "operation cleansing". Some Indonesia watchers consider recent developments to be a temporary setback in a general trend towards increased political openness but claims of greater political openness and a new-found commitment to human rights have never amounted to much for those outside Indonesia's small political elite.
For most ordinary Indonesians and East Timorese, the repressive powers of Indonesia's military and Executive have remained intact throughout. What has changed in recent months is that the small middle class has found its own freedom under threat.
The major campaign launched by Amnesty International only a few weeks ago focuses on the past five years and shows how hollow the Government's human rights pledges have been. In that time, human rights violations have continued unabated, even in parts of the country portrayed as stable and harmonious. The political and military torturers have continued to get away with their crimes.
At this point, I must pay tribute to Amnesty International for its work. In 1989 I went to East Timor with a list of people who had been imprisoned and then documented by Amnesty International in its annual report. After making a request to the military governor, I was able to go to one of the prisons to interview some of the prisoners named in that report. I was able to verify everything in the report down to the last detail. I was grateful to the Indonesian authorities for allowing me access because it enabled me to confirm that some prisoners had been tortured when they were first captured but that, once in prison, the torture had ceased. Anyone who says that Amnesty International makes wild allegations is wrong because the organisation takes great care when it documents such cases.
The Indonesian Government's human rights activities seem designed mainly to improve their image in international circles. Of course, this is not the first time that the Government's actions have not lived up to their words. In March 1966, only months after the military coup which brought the current Government to power, President Suharto, then General Suharto, promised that his new order would restore the rule of law and would be free from any form of oppression and exploitation. But, even as he spoke, Indonesian military forces were taking part in a grim campaign against the Communist party, leaving more than 500,000 people dead and a similar number imprisoned without charge or trial. Now they target those who organise trade unions—I know that the British Government have recently taken up the case of the last remaining leader of the independent regime in

Indonesia—and those who oppose land developments or test the limits of political freedom by criticising the Government or their policies. The tensions and the political targets may have changed but the premium placed on maintaining national security at all costs has not.
The Indonesian Government try to brush off those violations as isolated incidents, or the work of a few poorly disciplined soldiers, when in fact they are the by-product of a network of institutions, procedures and policies that the Government themselves use to crush perceived threats to stability and order.
What is scandalous is the fact that foreign Governments, including ours, have let the Indonesian authorities get away with it for so long, apparently seeing that country only as an economic prize and a strategic linchpin. In the aftermath of the Santa Cruz massacre in 1991, a handful of Governments suspended certain kinds of aid and military transfers, but their efforts were short-lived and most have since returned to their previous habit of paying lip service to human rights while adopting few concrete measures to back up their words. That is what the United Kingdom does.
Some Governments, including ours, have continued to supply military equipment that could be used to commit human rights violations. Indeed it is so used, as I shall illustrate. Other Governments have turned away Indonesian and East Timorese asylum seekers, and may do so again. Foreign Governments will have to stop putting economics ahead of human rights if we are to see the fundamental policy changes necessary to restore human rights to the people of Indonesia and East Timor.
As the Minister will know, there has been much public disquiet in the United Kingdom over the continued and increased sales of arms to Indonesia. Many people have questioned the Government's decision. The contract for 24 Hawk jets, with a further 16 under negotiation, is just one example of the increase in arms sales from this country.
We challenge that decision, first because of the well-documented involvement of Indonesian military and security personnel in human rights violations. The publicly stated primary aim of the Indonesian military is internal security rather than dealing with external threats. The United Kingdom relies on assurances given by the Indonesian Government that the equipment will not be used for internal repression, but past promises have not been upheld. Clearly the onus should be on the exporter—the United Kingdom—to ensure that the equipment is not likely to be used for that purpose. In Indonesia there, are many well-documented cases in which it has been so used.
Another reason to challenge the decision is the Indonesian Government's obstruction of independent international monitoring of human rights in the country. Some opening up has been seen over the past few years but visitors, including United Nations personnel, journalists, human rights groups and so on, are restricted in the freedom with which they can exercise their independent monitoring function.
Indonesians who speak to visitors usually fear reprisals. That was clear when we were there in 1989. The people whom we met in East Timor, who were brought to us as people who were free to speak their minds, were clearly terrified. They spoke in very soft voices, and even when a member of the Church came to speak to us he could not


say what he felt, because the door was open when we met him and somebody from the security forces was obviously listening to our conversation.
The meeting that we were supposed to have with Bishop Belo never took place, although it was part of our programme. Afterwards we were told that the bishop had not even known that we were there. The so-called freedom to speak is a myth.
There is a lack of regular monitoring by the United Kingdom Government of the end use of arms exports. The Government claim that it is impractical to monitor end use, and in a letter to me Baroness Chalker made it clear that she believed that it was not possible to do so. She wrote:
It is not practical to monitor their use once they have reached their destination.
Any pretence that that is going on must be dispelled.
However, other Governments do monitor end use. The United States general accounting office reported earlier this year that US military assistance to Colombia had gone to units responsible for human rights violations. That part of the assistance was then cut by the US Administration.
Other Governments have suspended or cut trade and aid to Indonesia on human rights grounds. The US Congress has suspended or cut funds for military education and training subject to improvement in human rights and it refused the sale of fighter jets on the same grounds. The Netherlands, Canada and Denmark have suspended development aid and Italy has ended all military transfers to Indonesia citing human rights concerns.
It is publicly stated by our Government that human rights are one of the factors that are considered in the procedure at official level to decide whether to issue an export licence. Other factors include the design and capability of the equipment, its past use and whether assurances are available from the receiving Government that the equipment will not be used for internal repression.
However, the problem is that the decision is not open to public or parliamentary scrutiny. There is no means of knowing the information and analysis on which the decision to issue a licence is taken. It is therefore very difficult for the Opposition to challenge the basis on which the decision was made.
Of course, our Government have frequently been criticised for their policy towards Indonesia. In 1992—93, we supplied more than £33 million in aid to Indonesia. In 1993—94, we supplied £35 million and in 1994—95 we supplied £40 million. So far as I am aware, none of that money was used in East Timor.
The argument about the use of Hawk aircraft has continued for some time. We receive a variety of responses from the Foreign Office whenever that matter is raised. According to the Foreign Office:
We are encouraging Indonesia to live up to its human rights obligations … There is no evidence to support allegations that Hawk aircraft are being used for repressive purposes against the people of East Timor …The Hawks that Indonesia has are two-seater trainers … Her Majesty's Government has an assurance from the Indonesian Government that the Hawks will not be used against civilians. We have no reason to doubt this. The Government would not license for export any defence equipment likely to be used for internal repression … The Hawks were delivered in the early to mid 1980s, too late to have been used in the bombing raids

that followed the 1975 invasion … Under the UN charter, all sovereign states have the right to their own self-defence so there is nothing wrong with selling arms to friendly countries to allow them to defend themselves. Indonesia is no exception.
The most recent exchange with Ministers occurred on 14 December in oral questions when the Foreign Secretary said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),
The hon. Gentleman cannot, and has not, produced evidence to support allegations that Hawks, already supplied to Indonesia ‖ have been used for oppressive purposes in East Timor. We think not.
Again, other exchanges in letters and written questions make more or less the same assertions.
I shall quote the evidence of Jose Ramos-Horta, who is the special representative of the National Council of Naubere Resistance, which, since 1975, has been the umbrella organisation for the East Timorese at the United Nations. In his evidence, he said:
I want to make it clear that Hawk ground attack/trainer' aircraft fitted with missiles have been used in East Timor regularly since 1983. Hawk aircraft were first used in East Timor in the Summer of 1983, more precisely in August 1983, when the then Indonesian armed forces chief, Gen. Benny Murdani, announced a new military offensive after a three-month cease-fire negotiated by Xanana Gusmao, Leader of the East Timorese Resistance, and the East Timor Indonesian army commander, Col. Purwanto. The cease-fire was unilaterally broken by the Indonesians who thought that they could wipe out the resistance with the new aircraft they acquired.
The 1983 offensive involved 20,000 Indonesian troops according to AFP, quoted in the New York Times. Two Hawk aircraft were used daily for almost six months. Hundreds of civilians and guerrilla fighters were killed during that period. The Hawks, armed with missiles, were used in three main areas of East Timor: in the Same-Ainaro-Maubisse mountainous triangle in the centre of the country, in the Lauten-Lospalos-Tutuala corridor in the far east and in the Matebian mountain range between these two.
In 1983 the resistance forces operated in company sized units numbering 100 each or more. The Hawk aircraft were decisive in forcing their dispersal into much smaller units between 1983 and 1986. Together with the Bronco aircraft and the French-supplied Allouette and Puma helicopters, Hawk aircraft were responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians between 1983 and 1986.
During the months of August and September 1994, two Hawk aircraft carried out at least six bombing raids in the Eastern region of East Timor. Hawks and American supplied Broncos are stationed at the Baucau airport, built by the Portuguese in the 60's and capable of receiving commercial aircraft up to Boeing 707s. Since the invasion of East Timor in 1975, the civilian airport has been converted to a military base.
In the last three months, Hawk aircraft have again been used extensively, mostly in the eastern region, with an average of six sorties a day, each bombing raid lasting 10 minutes with the launching of two missiles each.
Some of these raids seemed to be almost random without the pilot aiming specifically at guerilla targets but at any remote hamlet. On September 23 1994, at precisely I1H15, in the area between Kelikai and Baguia, a missile hit a thatched roof house setting it on fire and destroying the whole group of six impoverished houses. There were no survivors observed amongst some 30 inhabitants, mainly women and children in this typical East Timorese hamlet.
Because there are no large concentrations of Resistance forces (the resistance forces operate in very small groups of half a dozen or less and only really converge for a major attack which may involve formations of up to 50), the Hawks are used to intimidate villagers with low flying and targeting practice on poor villages.
That is what a representative of East Timor at the United Nations says is happening in that country. I believe that our Government have a responsibility to carry out a full investigation into Mr. Horta's allegations. It is no longer good enough to claim that there is no evidence, as the


Government have argued consistently, and that Hawks are used only for training purposes. On 14 December the Secretary of State reasserted:
The Hawks in Indonesia are two-seater trainers and we have no evidence that they have been reconfigured to carry live bombs since they were supplied".-[Official Report, 14 December 1994; Vol.251, c. 910–11]
It is not possible to argue that any more in light of Mr. Horta's evidence. I believe that the Government should agree this morning to carry out an investigation into the matter.
Some people argue that there are grounds to bring the United Kingdom before the International Court of Justice. Portugal will bring Australia before the International Court at the Hague in January 1995. There are those who argue that the UK Government are in violation of the UN charter and the relevant Security Council resolutions on East Timor by providing economic, financial and military assistance to Indonesia which enables it to pursue aggression in East Timor.
It is argued that British support of Indonesia hinders the exercise of the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination, which is explicitly recognised in Security Council resolutions 384 of 1975 and 389 of 1986. It will be interesting to see what happens in the case that Portugal is bringing against Australia.
We have witnessed fierce arguments in the Chamber between those hon. Members who have been on all-party parliamentary visits to Indonesia. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has constantly argued that the human rights situation in Indonesia is improving. He said recently that the Indonesian Government, from the President down, have fully taken on board international concerns about their human rights record and have done their best to address them.
That claim simply does not bear scrutiny. When the United Nations special rapporteur on torture visited Indonesia in 1992, he found that torture was commonplace. As a consequence, he made 11 recommendations, 10 of which still have not been addressed. We get very angry when we hear the apologists for the Indonesian regime constantly making unsustainable assertions that its human rights record is improving.
I think that more and more people from the international community will ask why the Indonesian Government, who can achieve such impressive economic gains, are apparently unable or unwilling to stop the widespread use of torture against their own citizens. More and more people will look at the pictures of the palm-lined beaches on holiday brochures and think of peaceful critics of the Government who are in prison. They will look between the columns of figures showing returns on investments and remember that a young woman who went on strike in an attempt to secure a pay rise of 25c per day was kidnapped, raped and killed when she went to the local military barracks to ask after her friends. More and more people will wonder why those who raise questions about corruption or ask why soldiers fired on peaceful demonstrators may find themselves locked in prison cells. There will be more questions and concerns about a Government and a legal system that can sentence someone to 10 years in gaol for collecting information about human rights and trying to send it out of the country.
The Government of Indonesia may not like questions on human rights being asked and they may continue to try to stop them being discussed in this House and elsewhere, but human rights violations will blight Indonesia's international reputation until its Government have demonstrated a commitment to ending them.
There are several ways in which the Indonesian Government can improve the human rights situation. A few of the key ones are: to permit independent human rights monitors to conduct thorough investigations into all violations and ensure that the suspected perpetrators are brought to justice quickly in a civilian court; to prevent torture and ill treatment by giving detainees regular access to lawyers and ensuring that statements extracted under torture are not allowed in court; to release all prisoners of conscience; to repeal the notorious anti-subversion laws and all other legislation which can be used to gaol people for their peaceful activities and beliefs; and to permit regular and unhindered human rights monitoring by domestic and international non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International.
Systematic human rights abuses have continued in Indonesia for nearly 30 years and in East Timor for almost 20 years. We owe it to the people of Indonesia and East Timor to make our voices heard and to insist that our Government listen and act on the evidence that I have presented tonight. They must put their commitment to human rights into action, so that the Government of Indonesia realise that we are serious when we say that the people of East Timor must be allowed to determine whom they wish to be governed by under the UN's decolonisation rules. We must show that we are serious about our commitment to those rules by looking again at the amount of aid that we give and military equipment that we export to Indonesia. We will be taken seriously only if our deeds match the words which we too frequently hear from Ministers.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I salute the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for her long-standing interest in this very important subject and congratulate her on raising the matter at this late hour—or early hour, depending on one's point of view—during what may be the last ever Consolidated Fund Bill debate in the House. I believe that ours is the last debate before the Adjournment.
It is interesting that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the right hon. Member for Northampton, South, are presiding over our proceedings, along with the hon. Lady, my hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman)—he was formerly in his place-and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir J. Stanley).
Proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bills have been used as opportunities for extended debates by Back Benchers since 1907. The modern practice became a regular feature of the House's proceedings in 1966, and the debate continued to be held on the Second Reading of the Bill until 1982. Following a recommendation by the Select Committee on Procedure, debates since have been on a motion for the Adjournment.
If the House agrees to the motions on the sittings of the House next Monday, today's sitting will mark the end of 30 years of Consolidated Fund debates as they now are. It is fitting that we end up on a serious and important subject.
I understand and share the concern felt by hon. Members and others outside the House about the human rights record in East Timor. It is the subject of regular debate and one on which I receive many representations from human rights groups and others.
We do not, of course, condone human rights violations in East Timor or anywhere else. Set against agreed international standards, the record on human rights in East Timor remains far from perfect. We continue to follow events there closely and to make our specific concerns clear to the Indonesian Government where appropriate.
The Indonesian Government are well aware of the importance that we attach to them living up to their human rights obligations. With our European partners, we have most recently expressed concern, as has the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, about the trial and sentencing of the Labour leader, Mr. Pakpahan, the ban imposed in June on three weekly magazines and the heightened tension in East Timor after clashes between the security forces and demonstrators in Dili in July.
We believe that the best way to persuade the Indonesians to make further improvements in their human rights record is through constructive dialogue within wider, co-operative relationships. We share many of the specific concerns set out in the recent report of Amnesty International. We have discussed them with the Indonesians as part of our regular dialogue on human rights. We recognise that a lot more needs to be done. Torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and other forms of human rights abuses are unacceptable wherever, and on whatever scale, they occur. As the hon. Lady said, and as Amnesty International has acknowledged, such practices are already banned by law in Indonesia.
We continue to encourage the Indonesian authorities to ensure that their laws are respected in practice. We have encouraged the Indonesian Government to invite an Amnesty International delegation to see the situation on the ground. We understand that there have been exchanges, but without, so far, an agreement on dates.
It is equally important to recognise that the situation in East Timor has evolved considerably in recent years. It is natural that the media and critics of Indonesia's record in the territory focus exclusively on what more needs to be done, without acknowledging that progress has been made. I am not sure that one-sided criticism contributes to international efforts to find a long-term solution to the problem.
The House will be aware that this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented favourably on the greater access granted by the Indonesian authorities to human rights and humanitarian organisations, as well as the international media. The Secretary-General has also welcomed the increase in visits to East Timor by East Timorese living abroad. Non-governmental organisations, too, have acknowledged that progress. In its September report, Amnesty International noted that East Timor was now more open to outsiders than at any time since 1975. In

May, the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Portugal agreed that such access and visits should be further increased.
We hope that that will prove possible, and we look to the Indonesian authorities to live up to the other commitments that they have made to the Commission on Human Rights. We welcome their decision to allow a visit by the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions. That took place in July and we will consider carefully his report at the commission's next session.
The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the journalists who were expelled from Dili last month in apparent contradiction of the trend of greater openness to which I have referred. Although the circumstances surrounding their departure remain unclear, we none the less regret any move that is inconsistent with the Indonesians' stated commitment to greater openness.
The Indonesian authorities have denied placing any general ban. Our current understanding is that journalists remain free to visit East Timor, subject to the usual permissions.
The hon. Lady referred to eye-witness accounts of the use of Hawk aircraft to bomb villages in East Timor. I listened to her carefully. The points that she makes about the use of Hawks remain allegations and no more. No one has come forward with any evidence to substantiate the claims made recently by Mr. Ramos-Horta. It is certainly for those making the allegations to bring forward the evidence. We have had specific assurances that British-supplied defence equipment, including Hawks, has not been used for repressive purposes.
It is highly relevant that the Hawk aircraft that Indonesia has are two-seater trainer aircraft, the sale of which was approved by the Labour Government. There is no evidence to support allegations that Hawk aircraft or other British defence equipment is being used for oppressive purposes in East Timor. The aircraft are based at a flying training school at east Java over 900 miles from East Timor. Of course, they could be modified—for example, to carry live bombs—if the Indonesians had the will and the technology to do so. The fact is that there is no evidence that the aircraft have been so adapted since delivery.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister agree to investigate the claims made by Mr. Ramos-Horta? He is a witness, and there are others whose names I shall give the right hon. Gentleman. Another witness is Jose Amorin, who sighted the Hawks at an air force base at Baucau in 1984. They were then seen being used in the Matabian mountains. Another eye-witness last year, Koni Santana, said:
The British-made Hawks have been used against the population, often bombing on a daily basis.
There are additional witnesses. It would be good if the Minister agreed that some assessment should be made of these accounts by the people whom I have mentioned.

Mr. Goodlad: We would need to see evidence rather than unsubstantiated assertions. Our embassy staff visit East Timor, as do human rights representatives, including Asia Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and foreign journalists. We have no reports from these visitors of Hawk sightings, in the air or on the ground. As the hon. Lady is aware, the Labour party spokesman on defence matters, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr.


Clark), explicitly approved of the sale of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia in November 1993. I welcome the Labour party's support for the Government's policy of permitting the sale of British defence equipment overseas where that is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We defend ourselves and should not deny others the right to do the same without good cause. I do not know whether the hon. Lady, who has spoken from the Opposition Back Benches but is an Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, has dissociated herself from the Labour party's position.
Contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Lady, we are not aware of any country that is operating a total trade embargo against Indonesia. Nor would we agree to do so ourselves. Curbing Indonesia's prosperity would not advance the cause of human rights or improve the situation of the people of East Timor.
That is not to say that we are prepared to allow arms to be exported indiscriminately. We assess all applications for export licences case by case and do not license for export any equipment that we believe is likely to be used for repressive purposes against civilians. The Indonesian authorities have assured us that British-supplied defence equipment will not be used against civilians in East Timor or Indonesia, and we have no reason to doubt them.
I should also make it clear to the House that there is no arms embargo against Indonesia and no prospect of securing international agreement to impose one. The United Nations Security Council resolutions 384 of 1975 and 389 of 1976 condemned the invasion of East Timor, but they did not call for either an arms embargo or military intervention. We understand that Italy and Sweden apply national embargoes on the sale of defence equipment to Indonesia, and the United States Congress recently imposed a ban on the export of small arms, but the Indonesians have purchased, and continued to purchase, defence equipment from many western suppliers, in Europe and elsewhere.
The hon. Lady referred to the case against Australia. The Timor Gap treaty, signed by Indonesia and Australia in 1989, is a matter for those countries, and the legality of the treaty is currently before the International Court of Justice. The treaty in no way affects our stance on the recognition of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor: we do not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor.
The hon. Lady mentioned aid. There is, I believe, a strong economic and social case for Britain to have a substantial aid programme in Indonesia. Aid from this country finances projects in power generation, forestry, education and other sectors that promote economic development. All the projects are subject to our normal process of appraisal.
Indonesia remains a relatively poor developing country. The annual gross national product per head is approximately $660. The country has a well-deserved reputation for good economic management and the use of aid. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of people living below the poverty line decreased by 43 million, but about 27 million people still live in poverty. As the hon. Lady said, British aid to Indonesia was £34 million in 1993—94; that is 18p per head of the recipient population, compared

with £2.18 to Uganda and £4.41 per head to Zambia. As contrasted with £34 million from the United Kingdom, Japan's aid in 1992 was $1.356 billion.

Mrs. Clwyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of that aid goes to East Timor, one of the poorest areas in the world, and that in the past few years none of the aid that he has quoted has gone anywhere near that country?

Mr. Goodlad: I will write to the hon. Lady about the precise application of the aid funds, but, if I understand her correctly, not only does she dissociate herself from the Labour party's policy on the sale of defence equipment to Indonesia, but she is saying that that country should receive no aid. Perhaps she is also saying that there should be no aid to any other country whose human rights record is less than perfect. If so, I think that we need to be told that clearly, because it will make a substantial impact on the aid programme throughout the world.
I now turn to the events of the past month. Several demonstrations by East Timorese protesters took place around the time of the APEC summit, including a sit-in protest by 29 East Timorese in the United States embassy compound. The Indonesian authorities gave assurances that no action would be taken against them and that they were free to leave the country. As with previous assurances that we have received from the Indonesian authorities, those have been honoured and the group left for Portugal on 24 November.
A number of demonstrations also took place in East Timor. The first, on 12 November, appears to have been a spontaneous one, caused by the death of a Timorese trader in a street brawl with an immigrant worker. During that and other disturbances in Dili, about 72 people are reported to have been arrested. We understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross had immediate access to the people who were detained, most of whom have now been released. The reports that we have received suggest that the security forces acted with relative restraint in policing those demonstrations. Initial press reports of fatalities have not been confirmed.
The hon. Lady is right in drawing attention to the fact that the human rights situation in East Timor cannot be considered in isolation from the territory's history. The invasion of that territory in 1975, and the killings and famine which followed, were a tragedy for the East Timorese people. We have never recognised Indonesia's annexation of the territory and, with our EU partners, have consistently supported international efforts aimed at securing a long-term solution to the problem.
We believe that the continuing dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, offers the best hope of progress. The aim of those talks is clear—to seek a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution.
That is no easy task. It requires a considerable effort by all those involved. It takes time to build up the necessary climate of confidence and trust which can allow progress to be made. We will give every encouragement to the process of dialogue, which is continuing.
Recent developments have been promising. In May, after the last round of talks between the Portuguese and Indonesian Foreign Ministers, the Secretary-General


stressed the importance of encouraging dialogue among East Timorese. He undertook to help bring about what he described as
an all-inclusive intra-Timorese dialogue.
Since then, a number of meetings have taken place which have brought together those with often opposing points of view. At the end of September, a meeting was held in Wales between East Timorese still living in the territory and those now resident overseas. The Secretary-General sent a representative to those talks. On 4 October, the Portuguese Foreign Minister met a number of East Timorese representatives, including those supporting integration with Indonesia. Two days later, in New York, the Indonesian Foreign Minister met Mr. Ramos-Horta, one of the main opponents of integration who is now exiled in Australia. Both parties recognised the significance of the meeting.
No one expects there to be dramatic shifts of stance overnight. Positions are too far apart. But such contacts at least allow the parties to air their differences directly and go some way to creating a better atmosphere in which questions of substance can be addressed.
The hon. Lady referred to the United Nations and its decolonisation committee. The special committee last considered the question of East Timor in July. After hearing statements from petitioners and the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal, the committee decided to defer the question to its next session in 1995.
We now look towards the next meeting of the two Foreign Ministers, which is due to be held in Geneva on 9 January. Preparations for that meeting are well under way. The Secretary-General recently sent two of his staff to Jakarta and East Timor to help prepare the ground. We cannot know what progress will be made but we have made clear to all the importance that we attach to such talks and we will continue to encourage the Secretary-General in his difficult task.
We will also continue to raise our human rights concerns with the Indonesians in ways that we consider most likely to be effective. We believe that the best way to persuade them to make further improvements is through constructive dialogue within a wider co-operative relationship. Nothing that I have heard tonight has persuaded me that there is a better or more effective way forward.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Statutory Instruments, c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.),

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Willetts.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.),

INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Azerbaijan) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Republic of Ireland) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Spain) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Willetts.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

DRUGS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

That this House takes note of and welcomes European Community Documents Nos. 8077/94 and 8929/94, relating to drugs and public health; recognises the importance of effective action by the European Union against illicit drug trafficking and drug misuse; and supports the Government's view that the proposals should be refined and improved within the mechanisms set up under the Treaty on European Union.—[Mr. Willetts.]
Question agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Sir John Stanley: This promises to be the last Adjournment debate following an all-night sitting on the Consolidated Fund. At 6.53 am, I am sorry that I have to keep my hon. Friend the Minister of State from his beauty sleep. I only hope that at some point in the course of the night he got a rather longer forty winks than I did on the floor of my office.
I want to raise two important aspects of blight in relation to the channel tunnel trains, those that are now running and those that will run in the future.
The first is the issue of blight and the related question of compensation on the existing lines to the channel tunnel through Maidstone East and Tonbridge, in my constituency. The second is the issue of blight that is now being created as a result of the publication of the plans for the new channel tunnel rail link.
On the point about the existing lines, for almost four years I have been raising on the Floor of the House the issue of entitlement in law under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for those whose homes on the existing lines are now being depreciated in value with the commencement of the channel tunnel freight and passenger services.
I first raised the issue on 12 March 1991 on the Second Reading of the Planning and Compensation Bill. From then on, I have been arguing that injurious affection compensation was claimable under the Land Compensation Act because of the major reconstruction and alteration of the existing lines to enable them to take channel tunnel trains.
That same legal view was also taken by counsel in an opinion provided for the local authorities concerned and given by Mr. Gregory Stone. I set out the arguments fully in my last Adjournment debate on the subject on 13 January. What was significant was that at the end of my debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the then Minister for Public Transport, agreed that compensation was, in principle, claimable. He said:
We accept my right hon. Friend's understanding and interpretation of the Land Compensation Act 1973… British Rail and the Department acknowledge that under section 9(1)(b) it is open to individuals who believe that they are affected to apply for compensation. That is not the issue, because I certainly accept that as a point of principle. The question is to what extent that applies."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 434.]
My right hon. Friend also said that he wanted to study carefully both what I had said in the debate and Mr. Gregory Stone's opinion.
I sent Mr. Stone's opinion to my right hon. Friend who, of course, studied it closely with his legal advisers. Then, having studied it, he came back to me with the same view of the application of the Land Compensation Act. He did so in a written answer on 15 February, when he said:
Counsel made the point that it follows from these provisions that changes of use which are limited to intensification of the use of existing lines do not give rise to compensation, whereas reconstructions, extensions and other alterations may do so. The Government see no reason to dissent from this interpretation … I fully recognise that compensation may be payable where existing railway lines are reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have first been used and where it can be shown that depreciation has resulted from physical factors, such as noise and vibration, caused by their use."—[Official Report, 15 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 728–29.]

A few weeks after that written answer was given, the ownership of the lines passed to Railtrack at the beginning of April this year. That was an unhappy event for my constituents, as it turned out, and perhaps in more ways than one. At that point I resumed my compensation quest with the chairman of Railtrack, Mr. Robert Horton. I saw Mr. Horton personally. I corresponded with him. On 19 September this year there arrived what I can only describe as Mr. Horton's final, in effect "go-and-get-lost" letter. It read as follows:
We could probably debate indefinitely the interpretation of the words that appear in Hansard. Railtrack's position is clear: even if the Minister was accepting on behalf of the Government that the Land Compensation Act 1973 does entitle those living near existing railway lines used by Channel Tunnel traffic to claim compensation (subject to proving diminution in value), Railtrack does not agree with that interpretation of the Act. I am afraid, therefore, that Railtrack will continue to resist these claims".
That is a deeply unsatisfactory position.
Railtrack has effectively said to me and to my constituents and, indeed, to many others up and down the line that they can forget what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the House. Railtrack does not intend to pay compensation to anyone under any circumstances. That issue will clearly have to be resolved in the courts. My only comment at this point is that if the courts find that in some circumstances compensation is payable—I believe that they will so find—Railtrack will bear an extremely heavy responsibility. It will bear the responsibility of having denied people their legal rights and having done so when an entitlement to compensation in principle was stated to exist by a Minister in the House of Commons not once but twice.
I shall now deal with the new line—the channel tunnel rail link—and the performance on the issue of blight of another wholly owned subsidiary of British Rail, Union Railways Ltd. The voluntary purchase scheme for blighted homes was set out first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the then Secretary of State for Transport, in his statement on the channel tunnel rail link on 24 January 1994. It was then elaborated in the Union Railways paper of 23 February this year entitled, "Guide to property purchase procedures for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link."
I initiated an Adjournment debate on the voluntary purchase scheme on 31 March this year. I voiced considerable worries about the adequacy of the scheme. I am sorry to say that I still regard the voluntary purchase scheme as seriously inadequate in two key matters. It is inadequate in defining which properties are blighted and in producing a reasonable system whereby those who suffer acute hardship because they are unable to sell their blighted homes can do so.
It is demonstrable now that those who have homes which are clearly blighted in the eyes of prospective purchasers—that is the key factor—are unable to secure the purchase of their homes under the voluntary purchase scheme. A number of my constituents received letters from Union Railways stating that the subsoil to their properties may be affected as a result of the future construction of the tunnel under Blue Bell Hill. Anyone who receives such a letter, even if it is coupled with a statement saying that any damage will be put right, is effectively receiving the kiss of death on any likelihood of selling his home to a third party. Potential buyers would not take the risk.
Many of the homeowners who have been trying to sell their properties since the proposal to tunnel beneath them was announced have a bundle of letters from surveyors, estate agents and others, making it clear that their homes are unsaleable as a result of the channel tunnel rail link proposals.
British Rail maintains that the properties are not blighted. A profoundly unsatisfactory feature of the voluntary purchase scheme is that the sole and exclusive arbiter of whether a home is blighted is Union Railways. That is not reasonable. I want to propose a way forward that would be reasonable for both sides.
The way is happily precedented—and I know that Government Departments always like precedents. Even more happily, it is precedented in the Department of Transport. I commend the procedure already adopted by the Department in relation to the voluntary acquisition of homes blighted by road schemes. One excellent piece of legislation from this Government is section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which gives a voluntary acquisition power to highway authorities to purchase blighted homes that are beyond the geographical limits of statutory blight. I have substantial experience of the operation of section 62 in my constituency in connection with the widening of the M20 and the channel tunnel.
The Department has operated section 62 reasonably fairly and sensibly in the widening of the M20. In many cases, it said that a property should be independently valued by the district valuer and then marketed at that valuation for a given period—usually around three months—and that if at the end of that period the property was not sold, the Department would be willing to purchase it.
That procedure was set out in the letter of 27 August 1992 from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London in the case of my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Martin. He wrote:
We need to be satisfied before agreeing to purchase the property that the asking price is reasonable. The District Valuer suggests without inspection of the property, that this is more likely to be in the region of £85,000 in current conditions. The Department have recently written to Mr. and Mrs. Martin pointing this out and asking them to arrange for the property to be marketed at a more realistic price level. If after 10 weeks they receive no reasonable offers, then we will agree to purchase their property.
That is a reasonable and fair procedure, which has worked well in the context of the widening of the M20. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tell Union Railways to adopt the same procedure in dealing with homes where there is a dispute between the owners of the homes and Union Railways about whether they are blighted in the context of the channel tunnel rail link.
The second deficiency of the voluntary purchase scheme is that it is conspicuously failing to achieve purchase in cases of hardship when a house is blighted. To illustrate that point, I need not go further than the case of a house above the proposed tunnel under Blue Bell Hill owned by a married couple in my constituency to whom, for both medical and personal reasons, I shall refer as Mr. and Mrs. Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Y suffered last year the appalling experience of their son committing suicide by hanging himself in their home. His body was discovered by his mother and this experience has had a devastating effect on her mentally. Some indication of this can be gauged from

the open letter I have received from her consultant psychiatrist. I shall quote two extracts. The first reads as follows:
The reason for her illness is the tragic death of her son, who hung himself in the house. Mrs. Y found her son's body hanging and she tried to untie the corpse in desperation to save him, but he was already dead …. She cannot sleep and cries all the time. She cannot get over the death of her son, as long as the memory is there. Everything in the house reminds her of one image and one image only; her beloved son's corpse dangling from the ceiling.
The consultant psychiatrist concludes as follows:
I support any effort to help this unfortunate family find an alternative accommodation, but it seems that they are unable to sell their house because of the geography and plans to build the channel tunnel. It is essential that she is given all the help necessary, in order to leave that house as soon as possible, to enable her to heal her wound and come to terms with the loss of her son.
The consultant psychiatrist makes the plea that all help necessary is given to Mr. and Mrs. Y to help them move from their home. I am sorry to report to the House that that plea to Union Railways has, so far, fallen on totally stony ground. Mr. and Mrs. Y have been desperately trying to sell their home. They have been unable to do so because of the blight created by the tunnelling proposed under their home. Union Railways claims that they are not blighted and, therefore, refuses to buy them out on hardship grounds. I consider that for a public authority in these circumstances to refuse to buy a blighted house on hardship grounds is quite intolerable and unacceptable.
The voluntary purchase scheme is not working properly. It is not enabling blighted homes to be bought when those homes are demonstrably blighted in the view of surveyors and estate agents. It is not providing a means whereby blighted properties can be purchased in cases of conspicuous and clear personal hardship. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with extreme seriousness with the issues I have raised and to use the utmost force at his disposal to ensure that Union Railways adopts a more reasonable and more humane voluntary purchase acquisition scheme at a very early date.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for returning to this important subject yet again. He last brought it to our attention on 31 March. He has campaigned consistently and vigorously on behalf of constituents who may be affected by existing channel tunnel rail services or by the future channel tunnel rail link, and I have no doubt that his energetic efforts on their behalf are very much appreciated.
My right hon. Friend referred to nuisance arising from existing lines, to an exchange in the House with my predecessor and to subsequent correspondence. He also referred to entitlements in law under the Land Compensation Act 1973. He acknowledged that these are matters to be settled by legal process if they cannot be settled by agreement between Railtrack and the parties involved.
My hon. Friend mentioned comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) when he had my current responsibilities. I wish neither to add to, nor to subtract from, anything that he said then, but clearly Railtrack has taken its own legal advice—advice that differs from the opinion of Mr. Stone, which was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for


Kettering by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. I am sure that Railtrack will take careful note of what my right hon. Friend has said this morning about the consequences of the course on which it appears to be set.
My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the channel tunnel rail link project, and the great benefits that the Government expect to flow from it. Unfortunately, those substantial benefits are not unqualified good news for everyone, especially those who live on the route of the new link—and, indeed, those who live alongside existing lines that are currently being used for channel tunnel traffic.
The Government are keen to ensure that satisfactory arrangements exist for properties that are blighted as a result of the link. Compulsory purchase powers are, of course, being sought for property and land required for the construction of the new link by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which received its First Reading on 23 November. Meanwhile, the approach of Union Railways has been based as far as possible on the existing statutory blight provisions, and on other purchase arrangements such as those used for road planning. They have been adapted to accommodate the differences between roads and railways.
My right hon. Friend has argued forcefully that the similarities between roads and railways are rather greater than is currently acknowledged by Union Railways. As the first Minister for Railways and Roads, I have a keen interest in achieving as much symmetry as possible in the correspondence between provisions applying to railways and those applying to roads. In all the work that is being done in my Department, I am seeking to ensure that we have a set of schemes that apply equally validly to both roads and railways, as there is a clear "read across" between the two. I shall certainly reflect carefully on my right hon. Friend's constructive suggestions—although I think he will appreciate that I cannot necessarily give him any further undertakings off the cuff at 7.17 am.
The present arrangements are based on the safeguarding directions issued to local authorities, which were initially published in February and recently reissued—although there are no substantial changes. Safeguarding is important in that it brings the statutory blight procedures into play, so that owner-occupiers of domestic properties within the safeguarded zone have a right to serve blight notices and to require Union Railways to purchase the blighted properties.
In advance of use of any of those compulsory powers, Union Railways has instituted a voluntary purchase scheme that simplifies the purchase arrangements, but really applies them as they would be applied if blight notices had been issued and accepted. The basis on which this is done is set out in pamphlets produced by Union Railways.
For residential owner-occupied properties outside the safeguarded areas, and which are not required for the construction of the railway, there is a separate discretionary or hardship purchase scheme. When assessing whether to purchase properties under this scheme, Union Railways has to be satisfied that there are legitimate hardship grounds and that enjoyment of the home will be seriously affected by the operation of the railway. It is in meeting those two requirements that most of the problems arise.
I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Y. It is clearly a great personal tragedy and, on humanitarian grounds, one would wish to offer as much assistance as possible. I undertake to re-examine the case to ascertain whether there is anything that we could justifiably do to provide assistance but, as my right hon. Friend knows, it has been considered many times. The prime difficulty is that the tunnel under Blue Bell Hill is about 300 ft under the surface and, on technical grounds, it is not accepted ithat that would have a significant effect on the house.
However, I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's point that the technical argument about whether there will or will not be a serious effect does not matter; if someone needs to sell a home, what matters is whether prospective purchasers believe that there is a serious problem. There can often be a great gulf between the two perceptions. It is difficult to assist in this particular case because to do so would clearly have ramifications for other parts of the route where there is housing above deep tunnel. However, I undertake to have the case reconsidered carefully to see whether there is any way in which we can be of assistance.

Sir John Stanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that in cases of serious hardship it is intolerable on moral and ethical grounds that people should be locked into a home until 2002 which, unless they can be bought out voluntarily, will be their position before they can claim any compensation entitlement?

Mr. Watts: I would seek to achieve arrangements that can accommodate severe hardship and compassionate circumstances without creating a precedent which would require us to purchase hundreds of houses at substantial cost to the public purse and with some other undesirable consequences.
Widespread purchase of property in a given area can cause substantial disruption to a community. We had some experience of that with earlier routes for the channel tunnel rail link. British Rail operated a system whereby properties in a very broad band were purchased and, having bought many properties not needed for the link, it is having to dispose of them. Meanwhile, communities have been disrupted.
The intention is to design into the rail link measures to deal with the problems of noise and vibration at source. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is the preferable way to handle the matter.
I commend my right hon. Friend for his continuing interest in the subject. I know that it has been borne in on my predecessors and it has certainly been borne in on me this morning. I shall

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the final "Order", I think that it is appropriate to record that at 7.23 am it seems likely that the House ends the procedure on the Consolidated Fund, including all-night sittings, which has existed for some 30 years. Order.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Seven o'clock.